I present the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Petitions for the 47th Parliament.

The report read as follows—

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PETITIONS COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 12

Petitions and Ministerial Responses

31 July 2023

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP

Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP

Mr Sam Birrell MP

Ms Alison Byrnes MP

Ms Lisa Chesters MP

Mr Garth Hamilton MP

Ms Tracy Roberts MP

Ms Meryl Swanson MP

Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented.

The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 24 May 2023, 31 May 2023, 14 June 2023 and 21 June 2023.

1. The committee resolved to present the following 65 petitions in accordance with standing order 207:

Petitions certified on 24 May 2023

From 14187 petitioners—requesting no mRNA vaccines for our animals (EN5106)

From 19 petitioners—requesting that the ATO to cease acquiring residential investment property loan data (EN5111)

From 437 petitioners—regarding a declaration of dissent to the Voice, Treaty Truth process (EN5112)

From 5 petitioners—requesting Hindutva propaganda be banned from Australian cinemas (EN5113)

From 759 petitioners—requesting a formal review of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) (EN5115)

From 27 petitioners—requesting a Royal Commission into teaching in Australia (EN5116)

From 974 petitioners—requesting an urgent response to the war in Sudan (EN5121)

From 80 petitioners—requesting that the Legislation for Stage 3 Tax Cuts be re-examined (EN5124)

From 40 petitioners—requesting a governance safeguard for sound medical scientific evidence (EN5125)

From 20 petitioners—regarding dual citizenship policy (EN5126)

From 110 petitioners—regarding farmers (EN5128)

From 26 petitioners—requesting the prioritisation of Humanitarian visas for Sudanese nationals (EN5129)

From 41 petitioners—requesting a decrease of MPs' wages to the jobseeker rate (EN5130)

From 51 petitioners—requesting an overhaul to the Disability Support Pension income rules for employment (EN5131)

Petitions certified on 31 May 2023

From 61 petitioners—regarding flights and U-Turnsover the Bay in Brisbane (EN5132)

From 5 petitioners—regarding 494 Visa processing times (EN5133)

From 1327 petitioners—requesting fair pay for music played and that radio caps be removed (EN5134)

From 63060 petitioners—requesting that gender affirming care not be covered by Medicare. (EN5135)

From 13 petitioners—requesting that the post-study 485 visabe extended to include a certain postgraduate qualification (EN5136)

From 25 petitioners—requesting that Donald Trump Jr. be denied a visa (EN5138)

From 80 petitioners—requesting the cessation of free sexual adult content online (EN5139)

From 73 petitioners—requesting a 'Mercy Amendment' to the whistleblower protections for persons with disability (EN5140)

From 253 petitioners—requesting that Australia's unused F18 Hornets be donated to aid Ukraine (EN5142)

From 7738 petitioners—requesting funding to the Tasmanian Government for the AFL stadium inTasmania (EN5143)

From 81 petitioners—regarding domestic violence and financial abuse mitigation for financial institutions (EN5144)

From 101 petitioners—requesting Ease housing crisis. Ease immigration (EN5146)

From 10 petitioners—requesting post-study work visas for graduates of1.5 year Master's programs (EN5147)

From 57 petitioners—requesting PwC and associated entities be banned from Australian Government tenders (EN5148)

From 5865 petitioners—requesting an investigation into excess death since the commencement of Covid vaccines in Australia (EN5149)

Petitions certified on 14 June 2023

From 132 petitioners -requesting that jumping prevention barriers be installed on Douglas Park Bridge (EN5114)

From 15 petitioners—requesting the setting of minimum pay rises (EN5150)

From 21965 petitioners—requesting a permanent residency path for contributors to the economy during the pandemic (EN5151)

From 169 petitioners—requesting that Visanne be added to the PBS for patients with endometriosis (EN5155)

From 49 petitioners—requesting that banks be required to implement scams protection, and increase customer account security (EN5156)

From 17 petitioners—requesting that Wagner PMC be designated as a Terrorist organisation (EN5157)

From 6 petitioners—requesting better rights and protections for overseas remote workers (EN5159)

From 230 petitioners—requesting that synthetic meat in Australiabe banned (EN5162)

From 69 petitioners—requesting that the existential risk from artificial intelligence, copyright violation, other harms be investigated (EN5163)

From 112 petitioners—requesting that NRAS funding be extended until the housing crisis is fixed. (EN5165)

From 295 petitioners—requesting that the RBA hold bitcoin. (EN5167)

From 8473 petitioners—requesting that for Medicare rebates lactation consultants be recognised (EN5169)

From 1696 petitioners—requesting a review of awards given to Commanders of Joint Task Force 633 (EN5170)

From 39 petitioners—regarding toxic Sludge in Tasmania's Tarkine Rainforest (EN5171)

From 10 petitioners—requesting a federal AI Environment Act (EN5172)

From 655 petitioners—requesting a rejection of the World Health Organisation Pandemic Treaty (EN5174)

From 21 petitioners -requesting General Sir Peter Cosgrove to review Afghanistan awards (EN5179)

From 59 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into all Aboriginal bureaucracies (EN5182)

From 1570 petitioners—requesting the setting of a 2-year statutory time limit for visa processing (EN5186)

From 48 petitioners—requesting negative gearing be abolished (EN5191)

From 1108 petitioners—requesting that Wagner group be designated as a terrorist organisation (EN5196)

Petition certified on 21 June 2023

From 2 petitioners—regarding the Russian Embassy (EN5200)

From 262 petitioners—requesting visa refunds for New Zealanders impacted by the July 2023 changes (EN5201)

From 75 petitioners—requesting conversion therapy be banned on a federal level (EN5207)

From 39 petitioners—requesting supermarket pricing transparency (EN5209)

From 2062 petitioners—regarding Condemn Azerbaijan's Blockade of Artsakh (EN5210)

From 28 petitioners—requesting child support reform to make it fairer for paying parents (EN5211)

From 37 petitioners—requesting unpaid overtime be eliminated (EN5212)

From 19 petitioners—requesting visa refunds requested for New Zealand citizens caught in the changes (EN5213)

From 80 petitioners—requesting that the biosecurity levy imposed on farmers be removed (EN5214)

From 74 petitioners—requesting that artificial intelligence technology be urgently investigated and regulated (EN5215)

From 112 petitioners—requesting funding for Stage 4 of the Gold Coast light rail (EN5216)

From 1080 petitioners—requesting that Russia be allowed to build its new embassy in Canberra (EN5219)

From 42 petitioners—regarding the clinical onset definition for VEA Statements of Principles (EN5220)

From 71 petitioners—requesting access to free breast screening for young woman and men (EN5221)

From 16 petitioners—requesting a one-currency treaty between Australia and New Zealand (EN5222)

2. The following five ministerial responses to petitions were received:

Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 21 June 2023

From the Minister for Aged Care to a petition regarding minimum levels of enrolled nurse and allied health professional care time in residential aged care (EN4717)

From the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury to a petition requesting one or more legal methods by which individuals can voluntarily donate money directly to the Commonwealth of Australia (EN4772)

From the Minister for Housing to a petition regarding rental affordability in Australia (EN4800)

From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition regarding the Australian Rail Track Corporations' (ARTC's) statutory corporation status (EN4802)

From the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a petition regarding NDIS worker screening (EN4870)

Ms Susan Templeman MP

Chair—Petitions Committee

I present the following 65 petitions:

I present the following five ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:

As Chair of the Petitions Committee it's a privilege to present petitions and ministers' responses to petitions to the House each sitting Monday. However, today I'd like to mention the other opportunities available to members during the sitting week to present petitions on behalf of their constituents.

While most petitions are presented by the Chair of the Petitions Committee, it's not uncommon for another member to present a petition on a topic of particular interest to them and their constituency. Any member may present a petition without needing to seek leave during the periods for 90-second statements in the House and Federation Chamber, constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber and the adjournment debate in the House and Federation Chamber. When presenting a petition a member will usually take the opportunity to speak about the subject matter of the petition and the community members who organised it.

Importantly, a petition should first be approved by the Petitions Committee as meeting the requirements for petitions as set out in the standing orders before it is presented. If a petition has not yet been approved, a member may seek leave to present the petition as a document; however, this is not recommended.

If a member wishes to present a petition, they should inform the Petitions Committee secretariat and arrange a speaking time with their whip. Once approved by the Petitions Committee the hard-copy petition will then be delivered to the member for presentation.

So far this parliament 11 petitions have been presented by members outside of the Monday morning presentation by the Petitions Committee.

However they are presented, petitions continue to be an effective way for us to engage with the people we represent on issues that are important to them.

I thank the House.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I present the committee's report entitled Review of Administration and Expenditure No. 20 (2020-21)—Australian Intelligence Agencies. Presenting this review is one of the key important functions of the Intelligence and Security Joint Committee set out by section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, and this work is undertaken on an annual basis by the committee. The act presently requires the committee review the administration and expenditure of six of the 10 agencies that form Australia's national intelligence community: the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate and the Office of National Intelligence.

To undertake its review, the committee called for submissions in November 2021. Submissions were received from six intelligence agencies, as well as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Australian National Audit Office, a civil action group and private citizens. Following the 2022 federal election, the committee resumed its inquiry and held private, classified hearings from November 2022.

Overall, the committee found that these agencies appropriately managed their administration and expenditure over the 2020 to 2021 reporting period. However, with a view to improving the administration and expenditure of the national intelligence community, the committee has made four recommendations in this report.

Firstly, the committee notes that this reporting period occurred during COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns. The committee received evidence of how misinformation and disinformation, both COVID related and then more broadly, contributed to the rapid change in the security environment during 2020 and 2021. While some public commentary about these issues has already been made by senior national security and intelligence officers, the committee sees an opportunity for Australia's intelligence agencies to take an increasing role in sharing information with the Australian public, where appropriate, on matters relating to misinformation, disinformation and harmful propaganda that pose a threat to Australia's national security. Therefore, the committee has recommended that intelligence agencies, including the Director-General of Security, consider opportunities to continue to speak publicly about this issue.

Secondly, in order to undertake these annual reviews of administration and expenditure, the committee relies on valuable evidence provided by oversight bodies, including the Auditor-General and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, both of whom have a direct and ongoing view of the operation of the agencies under review. The committee noted that, while the Auditor-General is empowered to provide classified reports on Australia's intelligence agencies to the relevant minister, there was not a mechanism for these reports to be provided to the parliament. The committee has recommended, therefore, that relevant legislation be amended to allow the Auditor-General to provide classified reports about intelligence agencies to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in certain circumstances.

The committee also noted the increasing challenges in attracting and retaining staff across the national intelligence community—or the NIC, as it's called—in the course of its review. As such, the committee recommends thirdly that the Office of National Intelligence, as the leading agency within the NIC enterprise, work with intelligence agencies across the entire community to develop consistent collection of data on staff movements and to develop a whole-of-NIC strategy to improve attraction and retention of staff.

Finally, much of the evidence from the six intelligence agencies gathered by the committee for its annual administration and expenditure reviews is already contained in intelligence agencies' annual reports. In the interests of improving efficiency, which we all want, the committee has recommended that the Intelligence Services Act be amended to allow for intelligence agencies that prepare a classified annual report to provide it to the committee to inform its review.

I would also note for the benefit of the House that, in undertaking this review, the committee is prohibited under section 29(3) of the Intelligence Services Act from examining a range of areas, such as ongoing current operational matters or intelligence sources. However, the review of administration and expenditure process remains an invaluable function of the committee to provide the Australian public, through the parliament, with confidence in Australian's intelligence agencies, and it forms a key part of the comprehensive oversight in place for the national intelligence community.

The committee extends its thanks to agencies and individuals who participated in this inquiry in support of the committee's work. I also want to thank the deputy chair for his work and all the members of the committee, and I commend this report to the House.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

I inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 110, the honourable member for Mayo has postponed notices 1 and 2 standing in her name. The order of precedence of remaining private members' business notices, as determined by the Selection Committee's report adopted by the House on 21 June 2023, remains unchanged.

I move:

That this House calls on the Government to prescribe that Australian superannuation monies be invested in Australian industries and projects by ensuring:

(1) superannuation funds holding the money of Australian citizens be encouraged to investigate mechanisms that will enable them to invest that money in:

(a) entities that have majority Australian ownership; and

(b) projects or industries that are based, or predominately operate, in Australia;

(2) the Government partner with such superannuation funds, under public-private partnerships (PPPs), to invest in Australian industries for money-making projects;

(3) that such PPPs are listed as critical economic generators and have streamlined assessment and approval processes; and

(4) that the Government consider all other necessary measures to maximise the income stream from such investments and offer maximum returns for Australian citizens.

Until 1993, there was a 60-40 rule. Sixty per cent of all superannuation went into government securities. In the very enlightened government that we had in Queensland, we used that money to build the railway lines and the ports to get our coal and minerals out. We went from zero to $60,000 million a year in coal and mineral production. We used that money to build the world's biggest power station, and, since the Country Party did not ascribe to the free-market policies of the ALP and the LNP, the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland took one per cent of the coal for free—the biggest power station in the world and free coal. It produced the aluminium industry, because we had the cheapest electricity in the world, generating $14 billion a year. The beef road scheme doubled beef production, generating $8 billion a year. Dams doubled sugar and cotton production, producing $2 billion a year. The railway to Mount Isa was built and generated $6 billion. A hundred billion dollars was created by the 60-40 rule, and it was abolished by the ALP government in the nineties. So no money goes for any of these development projects now at all. The money is going into the stock market, which, to quote no less a person than John Maynard Keynes, is a 'roulette wheel'. I would describe it as a Ponzi scheme. If you've got a lot of brainless wokeys—double-degree 'done-nothings'—making decisions on how your money should be invested, then what you've got is a giant Ponzi scheme. They buy and sell shares from and to each other.

The person who will second this motion has met with and is working with some of the most prominent people in this country, in an effort to rejuvenate for Australia our own motor vehicle industry. The government can do that by simply saying all government cars in metropolitan areas will be built in Australia by an Australian owned company. We thank very much the honourable member for Fowler for her initiative in this area. She is meeting with, as I say, some of the most important people in Australia.

While these people I mentioned spend the money on selling shares to each other, I might add that over 50 per cent of that money goes to buy shares overseas. We don't need to be told that because there's an advertisement where a superannuation company skites about investing in Swedish railways. What the hell would some wokey, double-degree, 'done-nothing' person out of Sydney University know about railways in Sweden? That is our superannuation money at risk. Before, it was guaranteed by the government. You wouldn't give that money to governments today if the 60-40 rule was reintroduced—and Kevin Rudd, in his book, says this must happen. Some of this superannuation money must go into development.

You couldn't give it to governments today; that would just be ridiculous. Look at the Queensland government—spending $62 billion for some sort of fantasy, new-age generation of electricity. We know where that's going to go, because already a lot of it's gone. Another $40 billion is being spent on people running around in a circle and a fireworks display called the Olympic Games, and there will be $10 billion worth of pleasure domes along the Brisbane River. So you couldn't possibly give that money to the governments of today, and most certainly not the Queensland government. You would set up an authority of highly respected Australians with records of achievement, and I don't hesitate to mention people that I consider should be in that group. They include Nev Power, who achieved tremendous success in the mining industry, along with Twiggy himself. I recommend those two people. Kevin Rudd introduced the NBN, which gives us the best communication system in the world, and also introduced CopperString, which opens up the much needed north-west minerals province, with massive vanadium deposits throughout that area, new-age minerals and, of course, copper, which is another new age mineral. I certainly would recommend him. I also recommend Sally McManus, the head of the ACTU, for entirely different reasons. Christine Holgate is a super achiever— (Time expired.)

Is the motion seconded?

I second the member for Kennedy's motion. Manufacturing is one of the largest employers in my electorate of Fowler. The industry employs nearly 70,000 people, which is almost 40 per cent of the electorate's population—compared to 5.9 per cent of Australia's workforce. For example, Liquip, based in Wetherill Park, is an industry leader in the design and supply of bulk liquid-transport system solutions, as well as hydrocarbon storage, and offers employment opportunities for my Fowler constituents. Liquip is part of OPW, which is part of Dover Corporation and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Then there's the smaller family manufacturing business of BX Earth and Bathox, based in Chipping Norton. I'm sure every Australian remembers Bathox—that blue box of bath salts. As the member for the electorate of Fowler, I have family, friends and colleagues who work in manufacturing and I understand the importance of this sector to our local and national economy. But, as we know, local manufacturing is struggling. I'm encouraged that our manufacturing industry will now get a focus, with Minister Husic setting up the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund to support local manufacturing. I hope that, as the government talks about the importance of manufacturing to the Australian economy, they recognise the significant contribution that south-western and Western Sydney people make to our manufacturing sector, which is dying for an injection of funds.

We have been talking about this great Australian manufacturing revival for far too long, and now, with so many families around Australia struggling to put food on the table, it's clear to me that the government must ensure funds get diverted into manufacturing regions like Fowler and not just diverted to building nuclear submarines to the tune of $368 billion. Where else could the government better invest in manufacturing than Fowler? As the member for Kennedy mentioned, Fowler can be the hub for EV vehicle manufacturing. We have the people, the resources and the experiences to regenerate the reputation of Australian manufacturing into a viable, sustainable future for all Australians.

I know that we have a workforce who are ready and willing to be trained and educated in the skills required to manufacture not just high-quality but export-quality goods here. Fowler has the potential to excel in production and can extend its manufacturing knowledge to production of EV vehicles or batteries for the nation. With bold leadership and courage, Fowler can become the global manufacturing engine room of this country. This is why I support the motion presented by the member for Kennedy, because it asks us to consider and explore options around investment opportunities into Australian manufacturing.

The motion encourages us to agree on investing a certain percentage of our superannuation funds into Australian industries and projects. In short, that means that existing Australian manufacturers or locally based manufacturers, with a majority of Australian ownership, can continue to grow, develop and expand. The member for Kennedy's motion is a step forward in revitalising the Australian manufacturing industry. According to the New South Wales Modern Manufacturing Taskforce report published in 2022, the New South Wales manufacturing industry has been in decline for many decades and investment in the diversification of the export base and economic complexity is necessary. The report states that advanced manufacturing is an opportunity for Australia and for New South Wales.

A shift in focus for direct investment into the manufacturing industry would support low-socioeconomic income areas by providing employment and investment opportunities for Australian business. I'm not suggesting we reinvent the wheel on superannuation; I just want us to think about diversification. Instead of putting all of our superannuation eggs into one global basket, why don't we think about how some of this can be directed locally to support and reinvigorate manufacturing? Just look at the opportunity we have with the Western Sydney International Airport project. We will see increased opportunities for jobs and skills in a multitude of industries. Instead of axing the rail system that would connect our community to job opportunities, superannuation funds can also go into building infrastructure, including advanced manufacturing. Anything is possible. Let us look at how we can direct just a portion of our superannuation investment to Australia and its industries, such as manufacturing. We could create jobs, develop talented and skilled workers, and boost our ability to innovate and create local technology.

Before I start my contribution, can I please welcome to the gallery Violet and Poppy Pullum with their mum and dad. They've come all the way from Frankston to have a look at Australia's capital and parliament today. I am pretty excited that they are here.

I thank the member for Kennedy for this motion. I think the intent of it, which is about investing in Australian manufacturing and investing in making things in Australia again, is not something that any right-minded Australian can take issue with. In fact, I know the member for Kennedy knows that making things in Australia again, Australia made, is one of the things at the heart of the Albanese government. The National Reconstruction Fund has been mentioned. The aim of that, in part, is to rebuild Australian manufacturing. Of course, the transition to renewable energy is not just important for the planet and the environment but it presents a massive opportunity to Australia and Australians to become a world leader and a manufacturing superpower in renewable energy. We dig up the critical minerals in this country that are required for renewable energy; we can and should do more in processing them and manufacturing in Australia. No right-minded person could take issue with that.

Where I take some issue with the motion put forward by the member for Kennedy is that superannuation funds should be compelled to invest in Australia. I would like them to invest in Australia. I would like Australian investments to not only be good for Australian businesses but be good for superannuation account holders. It's important to remember that the objective of the superannuation system should be, and has been, about delivering the best retirement incomes for all Australians so that they can retire with dignity.

Since Labor introduced a superannuation guarantee, it has been a great Australian success story. It does show what can be achieved by the combination of efforts of union movement workers and good, progressive governments. Since 1992, superannuation has grown from about $148 billion to over $3.5 trillion, making it one of the world's largest pension schemes. We have to be vigilant to protect that superannuation system. It's really important that while we're doing that we maximise the performance of superannuation investments and hold funds to account to ensure that all decisions are taken in the best financial interests of members.

So, Member for Kennedy, where national interests and the best financial interests of members align, superannuation can and, I would say, should make a significant difference to the national economy. Absolutely. But it is also important to always remember what superannuation is for. It's to make sure that everyone in the system knows that the objective is to deliver the best retirement incomes for Australians. I'm not sure if I qualify as a woke double-degree person that the member for Kennedy was talking about. I have two degrees, but one is in psychology and one is in law, and it's from ANU. I'm not sure whether that qualifies me as a woke double-degree holder. But I am qualified in being someone who will stand up every day for superannuation and for the difference it makes to working people.

We saw during the COVID pandemic the consequences of a failed policy which allowed and in fact encouraged people to access their superannuation early. For many people in my community and witnesses I have heard from before the parliamentary committee that I chair, it meant that their gambling habit got worse, their alcohol habit got worse—their money was just thrown up against the wall for addictions. It also means their retirement is going to be less secure for themselves and their family. We have to guard against the idea of dipping into your super to buy a house, rather than investing for your future. Member for Kennedy, I have no problem with the fundamental focus of this motion, investing in Australia; we just have to be very careful with superannuation.

The question is—

Mr Speaker, can I take a point of order on the last comment by the speaker, which reflects upon me?

The time is such that we're into the next speaker, but you wish to take a point of order?

For one second, yes. What I've proposed is that at all times it's government guaranteed. You make a good point, but I must make the point that I seek government guarantee.

I'm about to say something I don't usually say in this chamber, and that's that I largely agree with the member for Kennedy on this topic.

The superannuation guarantee is a great Australian Labor success story. It shows what can be achieved by the combined efforts of the union movement, workers and good, progressive governments. It has helped millions of Australians enjoy a secure and dignified retirement and has built significant infrastructure along the way. Since 1992, superannuation has grown from around $148 billion to over $3.5 trillion. This means Australia has one of the world's largest pension pools.

Australians know they can trust the Albanese government to continue to deliver a strong superannuation system that provides the best outcomes for members and society at large. A key part of this priority is to legislate the objective of superannuation: it's not just 'your money'; it is 'your retirement money'. That is a fact that those opposite chose to forget when in government. By having a clear purpose, settled by the parliament, everyone in the superannuation sector can work towards building a stronger system. No-one wants to see governments institute bad ideas that go against the foundations of super. That's why it was poor judgment of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments to see super as the answer to every problem they didn't want to solve—private stimulus used to solve a public problem: the pandemic. The then coalition government encouraged people to raid their super throughout the COVID pandemic. In their rush for an economic cash splash, the Morrison government put no safeguards around people hacking into their own retirement.

Those who took this decision will see their super balances stay too low for decades—that compound interest opportunity thrown away. They have forgone retirement savings for a trip to Bali, for a bull bar, for betting, for a boob job or for lap band surgery. There's evidence that these things are what withdrawn money was used to fund. Arguably, a prudent investor wouldn't make any of those investment choices, but humans are interesting creatures. That's where, I humbly suggest, the member for Kennedy misses the point a little bit with this motion. Good governments guide, rather than dictate, where superannuation funds invest. We need to strike a balance between financial pragmatism and economic nationalism. Personally, I've argued for years that too many funds are flying over Asia, where the fast-growing emerging middle class are, and investing in older, less growth oriented European and North American infrastructure opportunities. Asia, Africa and South America have greater risk but also better growth opportunities.

However, fund managers focus on what is best for long-term returns. As an Australian, I would like all investment to be in this country, but the return to members is the paramount consideration. It's important to recognise that there's a difference between the objective of superannuation and the benefits of the superannuation system. The objective of the system should be to deliver the best retirement incomes so that Australians can retire with dignity. That's why it's so important that we maximise the performance of superannuation investments and hold funds to account by ensuring that all decisions are taken in the best financial interests of members. Where the national interest and the best financial interests of members align, superannuation can make a significant difference to our national economy, but we want to make sure that everyone in the system knows that the objective is to deliver the best retirement incomes for Australians. For example, there are opportunities for super funds—if permitted and if the parliament sorts itself out—to invest in Australian housing. I wouldn't mind seeing more Australians benefit from Australia money. Why not invest money in new Australian housing stock instead of buying toll roads in Canada or Gatwick Airport?

But, as I mentioned before, it's up to governments to open these options to the funds, not to dictate to them. Imagine if coalition governments dictated where super funds invested. They'd inevitably come up with some harebrained pork-barrelling scheme—to mix my animal metaphors—in their marginal seats, such as dredging Tumbi Umbi Creek or the Beaudesert rail restoration project, or some sort of milk thing in north Queensland—I remember them.

We do not need risky investment schemes that result in the destruction of people's retirement savings, and that is the core purpose of super as imagined by Labor visionaries like Hawke and Keating. It's all about saving for a dignified retirement. It was a Labor government that established the superannuation guarantee, and only Labor governments have worked to strengthen it to provide for Australians in their retirement. Investing in Australia is a good thing, but you don't need the dead hand of government dictating that. We should let financial funds and financial visionaries make those decisions, because that is what superannuation is for.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that since the last sitting of the House, the following have come into effect:

(a) cheaper child care;

(b) strengthened paid parental leave;

(c) reform to the Safeguard Mechanism;

(d) registered nurses in aged care, 24 hours a day, seven days a week;

(e) the National Anti-Corruption Commission;

(f) a pay rise for aged care workers;

(g) the Small Business Energy Incentive;

(h) additional support for more social and affordable rental housing;

(i) expanding eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme;

(j) the Net Zero Economy Agency; and

(k) a pathway to citizenship for New Zealand citizens;

(2) further notes that the Government has delivered on these commitments in the face of relentless negativity and opposition from the Liberal-National Coalition; and

(3) acknowledges that the Government hasn't wasted a day since coming to Government by laying strong foundations.

Well, 1 July saw some of this government's changes of the past 12 months come into effect, and in my community they have been greatly celebrated. On wages, the minimum wage is up by $1.85 an hour, taking the total increase under the Labor government to nearly $3 an hour. And 2.7 million workers across the country who are on awards have received a 5.75 per cent pay rise—the largest increase since 2009. In a community like mine, where people are working hard to get a start in life—perhaps to buy that first home, or they're new families with young children—these pay rises are really reducing cost-of-living pressures.

Regarding aged care, I note that, like many of my colleagues, across the winter break I visited some of our aged-care facilities, where I was able, with staff, to celebrate the pay rise for aged-care workers, with 250,000 aged-care workers across the country receiving a 15 per cent pay rise. This means that nurses who are on award wages will earn an extra $10,000 where they're working in aged care. And of course there are the changes that see engagement in care by registered nurses 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which I know residents were really pleased to see.

Another change coming in on 1 July was around cheaper child care. Again, across the break I visited some childcare centres in my electorate and was really pleased to hear about not just how pleased staff were about their pay increases but also their commitment to a quality education as well as care in my electorate. This increases subsidies for up to 1.2 million families across the country. And a Commonwealth Bank economic insight noted: 'The changes to the childcare subsidy are expected to see a 32 per cent decline in out-of-pocket expenses for households. It is worth noting that cheaper child care for families will also, in the medium term, put downward pressure on inflationary pressures in the economy.' Well, that is good news for families in my electorate, and that was celebrated across the electorate.

We've also seen electricity bill relief, with $3 billion to help shield five million households and one million small businesses across the country. And the Small Business Energy Incentive comes into play. The bonus tax dedication will provide businesses that have an annual turnover of less than $50 million with an additional 20 per cent deduction on spending that supports electrification and the more-efficient use of energy. On top of that we've had additional support for more social and affordable rental housing. We've got the $2 billion social housing accelerator and we've expanded eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme. This week we'll reintroduce the HAFF bill into the parliament and ask those opposite to support this important piece of legislation that would see more support for those who most need it getting into housing.

On top of that, 1 July marked further action on climate change, with the reform to the safeguard mechanisms coming into play and the establishment of the Net Zero Economy Agency. The transformation to a net zero economy is a significant source of opportunity for Australia, its regions and its workers as our new industries emerge. The establishment of the Net Zero Economy Agency will help manage the transformation and ensure that the benefits of the net zero economy are realised and shared. It will engage with communities, regional bodies, industry, investors and First Nations groups.

On 1 July, the National Anti-Corruption Commission came online. This was long overdue. It was promised by the former government, yet not delivered. It has now been established by this Labor government. We've also seen a pathway for citizenship for New Zealand citizens, with much celebration in my community. This is certainly being celebrated across the electorate of Lalor. This has all been done in the face of deliberate, relentless negativity from those opposite, and, in some instances, joined by the Greens party. This is a serious government that is cleaning up the mess of a decade of a Liberal-National coalition government. We are helping ease the cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation, and we're laying a strong foundation for a better future. I'm proud to be a member of this government. I'm proud to stand here post 1 July with those new things implemented so that we can build a better Australia.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion.

This motion attempts to pat the Labor government on the back with spin. But I wish to use my time to explain how this Labor government's decisions are hurting rural and regional Australia. I do not know how often the member for Lalor speaks to her residents in her electorate, but I've held almost 100 mobile offices this year on the side of the road, in regional shows and in community centres, and not once have I been told that this Labor government is doing a good job.

The member first noted that the Labor government had introduced cheaper child care. Many families in my electorate of Flynn cannot find child care. This is preventing people from returning to work sooner. Our communities need availability and accessibility as well as affordability. There are no childcare vacancies Boyne Island, Gayndah, Mundubbera and Wondai. There are also childcare centres in Agnes Water, Emerald and even Gladstone that do not have any vacancies available. The kindergartens in Mount Morgan and Biloela have announced they will be closing, all because of a lack of funding and bureaucratic red tape. Many families in regional Australia cannot access child care, which begs the question: without educators and without access, how can the Labor policy deliver for families and children, particularly in rural and regional Australia? What's the point of having lower out-of-pocket costs if you can't get your child into a childcare place?

Now to the safeguard mechanism. It has been reported that Rio Tinto has slashed US$1.2 billion from the value of its Australian aluminium assets on the back of the federal government's safeguard mechanism, writing off the value of its Yarwun alumina refinery completely due to the need to buy carbon offsets for this asset and the unavailability of these offsets. Rio has also slashed US$227 million from the value of its shares in QAL. Since Labor's safeguard mechanism was announced, I have called it an attack on heavy industry and the thousands of workers that work in this sector, and it has proven to be exactly that. While Labor claims to be a friend of the working man and woman, it is happy to shut down these industries than employ them. You simply cannot trust the Labor government with your job.

I note another thought that was quite shocking is that the member for Lalor wants to give the Labor government a pat on the back for the reintroduction of registered nurses in aged care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Earlier this month, Carinity aged care announced the closure of the aged-care facility in my electorate of Flynn, Carinity Summit Cottages in Mount Morgan and one in my neighbouring electorate of Wide Bay in Tiaro. Labor's one-size-fits-all approach in aged care does not work in rural and regional Australia. Analysis shows that an additional four full-time registered nurses and 6.5 full-time personal care workers are required to have a sustainable long-term workforce at Carinity Summit Cottages. Despite ongoing efforts, Carinity has been unable to recruit sufficient staff to fill these vacancies.

The Labor government has failed older Australians by forcing this requirement on providers when they know they cannot meet it, as the aged-care sector deals with the immense stress of trying to fulfil this requirement when the workforce is simply not there. We know the facilities have already had to close and many more are considering this option, forcing older Australians out of their homes. It's extremely worrying that the Albanese government is now forcing aged-care providers to assume the legal risk if they do not have a registered nurse on site 24/7. This is now a requirement by law, and during these difficult conditions it's absolutely appalling.

I could go on all day about Labor's destructive policies—including the 60-day dispensing rule, the 82 per cent Renewable Energy Target by 2030, the truckie tax, cutting additional mental health support and desperate dodgy deals with the Greens—and its broken promises, such as to have urgent care clinics up and running in Rockhampton and Bundaberg by 1 July 2023 or to have 24/7 nurses in every aged-care facility by 1 July 2023.

I urge members opposite to stop patting themselves on the back for something that the Labor government is supposed to have done and it clearly has not, particularly in rural and regional Australia. Get out and speak to these people in rural Australia! They are the people who are hurting. And it's all because of ill-thought-out Labor government policy.

I rise to support the motion put by the member for Lalor and speak about the remarkable initiatives of our government and how they directly impact the federal seat of Pearce.

The Albanese Labor government has delivered on its promises. We now have our policies in place to deliver cheaper child care and have strengthened paid parental leave, allowing for partnered couples to claim up to 20 weeks of paid parental leave between them, and parents who are single at the time of their claim can access the full 20 weeks. The change to paid parental leave is a welcome one for new parents. I'm sure that many in this chamber will remember the stress of welcoming a new baby into a household and trying to juggle this, often without the backup of paid leave and support of a partner.

Many young families in Pearce will benefit from the Albanese Labor government's cheaper childcare scheme that commenced on 1 July 2023. Pearce has nearly 34,000 families with children and continues to grow, with more young families moving to our fast-growing area. Cheaper child care will help ease the cost-of-living pressures on families and make it easier for parents to return to paid work or work more paid hours if they want to.

My seat of Pearce is located to the north and north-east of the Perth CBD and attracts many new homebuyers to the area, as we still have land available to build new homes in desirable locations. The new Home Guarantee Scheme changes are designed to support homebuyers to buy a home sooner, by expanding the definition of a couple to allow family members or two friends living together to access the scheme. This will help so many young families and others in my electorate. It is a very welcome initiative and has been articulated clearly by those who live in Pearce.

Equally important is the additional support for many using social and affordable rental housing. Demand has continued to grow for houses, to rent, and the cost of renting, in many instances, has risen rapidly. Pearce, like many other areas across the nation, needs more social housing, so the new $2 billion social housing accelerator, to deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia, is most welcome. Working with state and territory governments, this investment will build thousands of homes for more Australians on social housing waiting lists in a more timely manner. We have a very proactive minister for housing in Western Australia, and I am confident that this initiative will help boost the work being done in our own state to achieve real change and build more homes.

From 1 July approved aged-care providers must have at least one registered nurse onsite and on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at each residential facility they operate. This is an important and necessary change, considering the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care, Quality and Safety that identified that staffing levels are critical as well as the quality of residential care. This initiative will provide confidence to families that their aged relatives are receiving the quality of care they deserve. It also goes without saying that the pay rise for aged-care workers was long overdue. There are 10 aged-care homes in the Pearce electorate. The staff are wonderful and do an amazing job looking after the most vulnerable and valuable elderly. I'm going to use this opportunity to say a very personal 'thank you' to all the aged-care workers not only imperious but around the nation for their valued contribution to our community.

I welcome the new safeguard mechanism policy, which sets legislated limits on the greenhouse gas emissions of our largest industrial facilities. Pearce has an expanding industrial base, and our region is attracting more businesses to the area. Safeguards like this are important in helping to protect our environment for generations to come. The new legislated net zero authority will support workers to access new employment skills as we transition.

I now come to matters of integrity. I commend the Albanese Labor government for delivering on its promise to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission, an independent Australian government agency that detects, investigates and reports on serious or systematic corrupt conduct in the Australian government public sector. The NACC will also educate the public service and the public about corruption risks and prevention so as to ensure we all work to the highest standards and that we are all held accountable.

I will speak briefly on the new pathway in Australia that gives to New Zealand citizens who have been living in Australia for four or more years eligibility to apply directly for Australian citizenship.

This is a government that it is demonstrating its dedication to improving the lives of Australia and its residents not only in the electorate of Pearce but right around the country. The government has delivered, despite the negativity of the Liberal-Nationals coalition. We on the side get things done, and our nation is better for it.

The member for Pearce just indicated that the government is getting things done. I would ask the member for Pearce and every other member opposite to go and ask their constituents whether they are better off now than they were prior to May last year. The resounding answer will be no. The resounding response will be a big fat negative, because people are not better off now than they were when we, the Liberals and Nationals, were in government. We achieved a lot.

We see in the motion of the member for Lalor 'cheaper child care'. That's all well and good, but it's got to be available—not just affordable but available—and in regional areas it is not available. The opportunities to get child care are just not there. The member for Lalor talked about reform to the safeguard mechanism, yet you only have to look at the Australian article from last Thursday entitled 'Power pain: long winter of high costs.' The front page report says:

Households and businesses face extended power price pain into next year after the energy market operator revealed the cost of generating electricity rose—

wait for it—

31 per cent in the three months to June.

Labor members: ask your constituents if they are any better off, if their power prices are coming down. The answer will be no, because they're not—

Order! Props are not allowed.

Because the answer is no. I wasn't using the newspaper as a prop, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander; I was just using it to gesticulate the fact that people are frustrated. They are very frustrated at the power price pain that they are enduring.

The members opposite talk about aged care. I know the member for Pearce genuinely—and I join her to thank those workers in the aged-care sector because people in their twilight years deserve the very best of care. What we saw from the royal commission—a royal commission that, I might add, we put in place—indicated that much more needed to be done. But let me tell you that taking away from an aged-care centre in Temora $3.68 million that was promised, pledged and committed under the coalition government for the Whiddon group to provide another wing for that valuable aged-care centre—stripping that money away—was not 'protecting' the aged-care sector. Making it impossible for regional centres to get people—it is so tough at the moment. Allawah Lodge at Coolamon has had to close an entire high-dependency unit, an entire wing of its very well run local government aged-care centre, because it just can't find the workers. I've spoken with the aged-care centres of Cowra and I've spoken with the aged-care centre organisers and owners at Junee and elsewhere in my electorate, and they are doing it tough. When you see that Labor want to put in 24-hour nursing, that's all well and good in utopia but it doesn't work in regional Australia, because you just can't find the nurses. I appreciate the aged-care minister has put a caveat in there that aged-care centres can apply for an extension to not have to do that, but eventually it will be there and those aged-care centres will close. What will happen to the people who've lived in their communities all their lives? They'll have to go hundreds of kilometres away to find a bed; hundreds of kilometres away from their loved ones; hundreds of kilometres from the communities in which they have lived, in many cases, for most of their lives. This simply isn't good enough.

It's simply not good enough for Labor members to come in here and read from their talking points, bagging the previous government and praising themselves. Stop patting yourselves on the back. Get out there and talk to your constituents and talk to your small-business people.

I note that in this there's the Small Business Energy Incentive. Ask your small-business operators how they feel about the fact that Labor has taken away the instant asset write-off to the point of an unlimited guarantee to purchase goods and utes and goodness knows what else for tradie operators et cetera. Ask them how they feel about that and you will find a big negative.

You will find when you talk to people that grocery prices are going up, fuel costs are going up and power is going up, and what's Labor doing? They're coming in here and praising themselves and patting themselves on the back. I say it's not good enough, and so does Australia.

The first year of the Albanese government has been defined by our relentless pursuit of building a stronger Australia for the future. Our focus on addressing cost-of-living pressures has never been clearer. We're more committed than ever to improving the lot of Australians, including in my electorate of Hawke. We have done this in the face of relentless and often belligerent hostility from those opposite. They stand in the way of progress for the sake of it and not because they genuinely believe in the things they whinge about. That hasn't got in our way. There are simply too many achievements to list in this speech alone, but I'll give it a crack. Whether it's cheaper child care or cost-of-living relief, whether it's pay rises for workers or more homes for Australians, we're getting on with what we said we would do, and we're doing it despite those opposite standing in the way at every turn.

My electorate of Hawke is full of young families juggling work, starting a family, paying their mortgages, looking after their kids. There were 58 babies born and 72 new families choosing to call the city of Melton home every week in 2022. We are the fastest growing corridor in the country, from Sunbury down past Hillside to Melton, from Bacchus Marsh out to where I live in Ballan. That's why we've brought in cheaper child care, starting earlier this month, delivering real cost-of-living relief for the average Australian family of about $1,700 a year. It's these sorts of policies that make such a difference for the almost 7,000 families who will directly benefit in my community in Hawke.

Paid parental leave reforms are high on our list too. It's good for our economy, and it advances gender equality. That's why we increased it to the full six months, while making changes to increase flexibility and accessibility. In Hawke, that means almost 2,000 families will benefit every year. These changes are good for our kids and they're good for our parents.

Who could forget the appalling, hypocritical behaviour of those Liberals opposite in relation to the safeguard mechanism earlier this year? It seems like every few months the Libs muster enough courage to stick their heads above the parapet just long enough for them to lob some bombs and disappear again. They did it with the safeguard mechanism, and they're doing it again with the Housing Australia Future Fund. The safeguard mechanism, which is one of our best defences against the rapidly growing threat of climate change, should not be controversial. It was brought in under the previous government. It helps lower our emissions and advances us further down the path of achieving net zero. We've already moved on from the climate wars by bringing forward a net zero authority to support workers in emissions intensive sectors to access new employment, skills and support. The shift to net zero emissions by 2050 must happen fairly for all Australians. We can't leave anybody behind.

A particularly vexed issue this year has been the provision of more social and affordable housing for those that need it. You'd have hoped that we'd moved beyond the point where some in this country denied homes for people in need, but unfortunately not. While all the bickering from the sidelines has carried on, we've been busy actually delivering more homes for Australians, like the $2 billion investment for more social and affordable rental housing in the May budget or the expanded Home Guarantee Scheme helping thousands more Australians into homeownership. Owning a home shouldn't be a luxury. It's increasingly out of reach for more and more young Australians, and it's simply not fair. We're tipping the scales back in their favour, making it easier and better for people to buy their first home.

One of the biggest areas most in need of reform when we came to government was clearly our aged-care system. Too often, people were left to languish in their later years after having given so much to our communities. It's never fair, and it's not right. The horror stories from the royal commission speak for themselves. So we did something about it. Starting this month, we've mandated that there be registered nurses in aged care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Not only that, but, in recognition of the amazing work done by that workforce, we made the call to fund a wage rise of 15 per cent for aged-care workers, an unprecedented bump representing our respect and appreciation for the tough work that they do every day.

We're delivering for all Australians. We're getting wages moving again. We're creating Aussie jobs. We're tipping the scales back in favour of people that need it the most, and we're doing it while we deliver a budget surplus. We can't expect much more from those opposite than the open indifference they have for the Australian people, but this government will keep delivering despite them.

The Albanese Labor government is well rehearsed in a one-size-fits-all headline but poor in addressing the diversity of need across Australian communities. The childcare and aged-care policies are prime examples of this. While they peddle the benefits, they fail to account for the unique circumstances faced particularly in regional communities.

Labor's policies no doubt benefit people in Labor seats in the suburbs and cities. However, the Labor government clearly has no idea about or interest in the lives of the nine million people who make up our regional Australia. The headline for cheaper child care is an effective sound bite, but, for too many living in small, isolated communities around Australia where there is no child care available at all, there is obviously zero benefit from the headline of cheaper child care.

I read a letter in this chamber recently from a desperate mother in my electorate who is unable to return to work as a teacher because there are no places available for her children until 2025. As she pointed out, this situation is perverse when so many regional communities are crying out for teachers, nurses and others, most of whom are younger mothers. These women tell me they want to work, they want to contribute to their local community and they're ready to do their bit to help meet the desperate need for teachers and nurses in rural areas, yet they are unable to do so because there is no child care. What good is subsidised child care when there is no child care available? What is this government going to do to increase the supply of child care in regional Australia, where it is desperately needed?

I find it offensive to listen to the Albanese Labor government boast about childcare subsidies when most parents in my electorate live in childcare deserts with no access to childcare services at all or completely full services, and Labor have no plan to resolve this. Similarly, the government's insistence on 24/7 coverage of nurses in aged-care facilities blindly overlooks the existing desperate shortage of nurses in regional communities. Again, a one-size-fits-all approach in policy will not suffice. We need targeted and tailored solutions that address the specific challenges faced in regional areas.

I urge the ministers responsible to address childcare deserts in rural Australia so that more nurses become available to meet the 24/7 mandate. I urge them to consider that the one-size-fits-all approach to policy continues to undermine and hurt regional Australian communities. One-third of Australians live there. I recently hosted the Regional Aged Care Summit in Mildura, where I heard from frontline workers, providers and peak bodies such as Anglicare Australia, the Australian College of Nursing, Bupa and many more. They were unanimous in their feedback: we desperately need more health- and aged-care workforce in regional Australia. Mandating a 24/7 requirement without solutions to supply the extra workforce is seeing more regional aged-care facilities simply give up and close.

What about Labor's pay rise for aged-care workers? When you can't attract aged-care workers for love or money, promises of pay rises are empty pipe dreams. I spoke to a national aged-care provider recently who told me they were already offering a $50,000 sign-on bonus and pay 1½ times higher than average to work in regional aged-care homes, and they still couldn't attract nurses. Unless those opposite have been living under a rock for the past three years, they would be fully aware that there are thousands of elderly people sitting in beds in public hospitals because they cannot be admitted to aged-care facilities, due to bed shortages caused by a lack of available staff.

Did it occur to the Labor government to tailor the 24/7 mandate to account for the specific circumstances in regional Australia, rather than enforcing their unworkable one-size-fits-all approach? Apparently not, hence the increasing number of facilities that are closing across Australia. My question is: what is this government going to do about childcare deserts and chronic workforce shortages in aged-care facilities in regional and rural Australia?

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) under the current Government, labour productivity growth has slumped to a historic low of minus 4.6 per cent; and

(b) the collapse in labour productivity represents a loss of almost half of the growth achieved during the Coalition's time in office;

(2) acknowledges that the Government's:

(a) excuses and blame shifting on productivity are no substitute for the lack of a growth plan for the economy; and

(b) indifference to the productivity challenge should alarm all Australians because it shows indifference to the challenges Australians are facing; and

(3) calls on the Government to take real action to address cost of living pressures and labour productivity growth.

Australians are hurting. Whether it's households or businesses, they are currently facing incredible cost-of-living or business-cost pressure, coupled with rising interest rates and rising energy bills. In the midst of this crisis, the government has utterly failed to address the policy pressures curtailing growth in our economic output. Under the Albanese Labor government, labour productivity growth has slumped to a historic low of -4.6 per cent. This collapse in labour productivity represents a loss of almost half of the growth achieved during the coalition's time in office. Productivity growth is vital not just to our economic outlook but to the standard of living for all Australian households. To keep our current standard of living in a global environment where competitiveness is ever increasing, we must be able to either produce more output from the same inputs or increase the outputs over time.

Instead of taking responsibility and providing real action to turn the tide on reductions in our national productivity and other vital economic growth indicators, the current government has done nothing but provide excuses and shift the blame. As stated by the Chair of the Productivity Commission, Mr Brennan, following the release of the recommendations of their five-year productivity inquiry in March this year, productivity policy is central to a modern economy. Productivity requires smarter spending, not more spending, and this government's indifference to the productivity challenge should alarm all Australians because it shows an indifference to the challenges Australians are facing.

I want to remind the House of the coalition's track record on improving productivity in our time in government. To improve productivity, you must invest in skills and new and emerging technologies, and remove regulatory and tax burdens on business. The coalition government understood that, and the proof is in its record through its time in government, with productivity growing by 11.4 per cent through this period. On policy, our deregulation reforms were expected to generate benefits exceeding $21 billion over 10 years, cutting red tape for business, individual and community groups. Our stage 3 tax cuts, reductions in small business company tax rates, the small business tax offset for sole traders and trusts and the R&D tax incentive reforms helped business to focus on what they do best by reducing their financial and administrative burden. We simplified the business activity statements and implemented single-touch payroll, which automates the ATO reporting requirements, further reducing compliance costs, improving processing times and supporting small business cash flow. We made it easier for businesses to employ their first employees, with the online hiring employees checklist and the employment contract tool that guides employers through a series of questions to generate an employment contract in as little as five minutes. In addition the GDP uplift rate, which applies to pay-as-you-go instalments and GST instalments, was lowered from 10 per cent to two per cent. Importantly, this measure alone injected some $1.85 billion of cash flow for more than 2.3 million taxpayers, including many small businesses. A significant hindrance to the growth of small and medium businesses was the delay in receiving payment for invoices, and through the payment times reporting register we ensured small business were paid on time.

All of these measures and many more went to directly improving the ability of small-to-medium business to do what they do best, and that is make high-quality product and employ Australians. It allowed future generations of Australian families and small businesses to enjoy better business opportunities and a better quality of life, and it must continue to improve under this government. But we're not seeing that. This government needs to make productivity growth a top priority. You cannot expect to compete in a global economy with the current inefficient, overregulated economic growth agenda we're seeing from those opposite. I commend this motion to the House.

Is the motion seconded?

Yes, the motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.

Unsurprisingly to all, I'm sure, I'm rising to speak against the motion moved in this place by the member for Forde. However, the tenor of the motion by the member for Forde, much like my disposition towards it, would surprise nobody in this place either. Not only is it a motion which fully demonstrates the myopic nature of the debate peddled by those opposite—and this goes for their hot takes on the economy—to add insult to injury, the member for Forde, at that exact same time he accuses the government of blame-shifting on productivity, indulges in blame-shifting. The member for Forde notes the recent decline in labour productivity accounts for almost half the gains made under the coalition government yet fails to mention the weakest quarter in that time was one almost entirely comprising the last hurrah of the Morrison government.

The member for Forde shouldn't get suckered in by the member for Hume when he puts sensationalist statistics out there, along with a self-serving conclusion. The member has form. I'm not urging caution due to imputing nefarious intent by the member for Hume. He has a proven track record of being bad at maths, the shadow Treasurer. We hear it from those opposite all the time. These arguments are almost akin to having the old tenants handing over the keys to the new after being evicted when the house is on fire, with a raging inferno roaring outside, then start imputing we didn't have the presence of mind to call 000 before moving in. Suffice to say I don't think those opposite are getting their bond back any time soon.

Yet they have the mendacity to call any talk of this 'blame-shifting'. The member for Forde continues by saying blame-shifting is 'no substitute for a lack of the growth plan for the economy'. I'll ignore the syntax, but since the member is crying out for the government to have a plan and take real action to address labour productivity, I don't feel so afraid to tell him about it. It is one of the main reasons why the Albanese Labor government has put jobs and skills on the top of the agenda from the very beginning, looking at this situation holistically, striving for ways to address immediate and short-term needs and also to lay foundations for long-term, long-lasting reforms that future-proof our economy.

Our government is also one that is in the business of building infrastructure that adds value not just to our communities but to our economy as a whole, not just white elephant projects that don't stack up and don't undergo any form of cost-benefit analysis beyond a few spreadsheets and pin-ups on maps overlaid with electorates. Infrastructure that brings about long-term benefits is more than just roads. It is digital infrastructure. Our national broadband network was set up with the future in mind: something that adds value to our nation and brings us closer to the standard of connectivity that other countries have had the ability to access for decades.

During their nine years in government, those opposite made a conscious effort to deliver the NBN faster, cheaper and with more affordability. I think that's what they said. Again, putting the syntax of that aside, in truth we are lagging so far behind other countries, and our productivity suffers as a result of this change to the trajectory of what was meant to be future-proofed public infrastructure. I'm in no position to accuse those opposite of scavenging through Labor's plans for a proper national broadband network, because at least scavengers take out copper, not put copper back into things.

Let us also examine how genuinely interested the member for Forde and his side of the chamber are to see a plan to grow our economy. The first example to come to mind is that, not all that long ago, those opposite voted against the National Reconstruction Fund in this place. We have the NRF in spite of them, rather than as a bipartisan effort. It is a policy that so many sectors within our economy were crying out for, but, no, we were met with opposition for the sake of it. We also have a plan to increase the supply of social and affordable housing—something that is poised to boost labour participation and productivity. And what did those opposite do? We know exactly what they did. The same folk that reflexively say, 'Labor-Green coalition,' in their sleep have spent their waking moments in this parliament joining the Greens to block affordable housing. They sleepwalk towards losing their place in growing Australia and making it ready to participate in tomorrow's global economy. Frankly, a debate on productivity is only productive when both sides of this chamber come into it with their eyes wide open. Let's have one sometime.

I commend the member for Forde on this motion because he is a hundred per cent correct. Australians are suffering under the Albanese Labor government. The last 18 months have been one of the worst times on record for people in relation to inflation in particular, and around rents, housing, electricity and everything else. Productivity is also caught up in that. I have to pull up the member for Spence for using an analogy on housing. In the last 18 months, when he and other newbies on the other side came into this place, housing and homelessness increased under Labor and the Albanese government. Under the coalition's record it actually fell, if you look at the census between 2016 and 2021, particularly around rough sleeping.

The member for Forde states correctly that under the Labor government productivity growth has slumped to an historic low of minus 4.6 per cent. The collapse in labour productivity represents a loss of almost half of what was achieved under the coalition government where people were working hard and getting heaps done at work and then enjoying their weekends off and so forth as well. It also acknowledges that the government's excuses and blame-shifting on productivity are no substitute for a lack of growth planned for the economy by the Treasurer and by the Prime Minister. We hear that daily in question time. For people in the gallery and the students up there: every day we come into this place in question time, a question is asked and they're just full of excuses. It's everyone's fault but theirs. The indifference to the productivity challenge should alarm all Australians, and particularly young people, because it shows indifference to what Australia is facing in the long term.

We, in opposition, lead by example. We call on the government to take real action to address the cost-of-living pressures and labour productivity growth. It's absolutely alarming that there's a collapse in productivity. And why is that? Because this Albanese Labor government, like every Labor government around the country, govern for their union donors. That's what they do. You've just got to look at what they've done since they've come in. They've abolished the ABCC—the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I'm sure that when the member for Fairfax walks around his electorate on the Sunshine Coast, doing mobile offices, he doesn't get people walking up to him saying, 'You need to abolish the ABCC.' It's not a top-of-mind issue, but for this government it's the No. 1 issue they brought into this place when elected 18 months ago.

Phase 2 is the quality advice review into financial services that the Assistant Treasurer has tried to bring up before and will no doubt bring up again—it's not a top-of-mind issue but it's something the unions want. We have the Leader of the House bringing in 'same job, same pay'. Who can remember, if you've worked in a workplace, where you're all working hard, as you should, and you've got some lazy people that rock on up, leave five minutes beforehand, have extra time off at lunch and have terrible productivity? This bloke wants to pay them the same rate as someone who works really hard—that's basically what 'same job, same pay' is. If it's legislated at 60 grand—

Order! Call the minister by his name, not 'this bloke'.

The minister opposite wants to ensure that everyone is paid the same rate. That's wrong and that will see productivity fall even lower. As a former small business owner I was quite happy to pay everyone award wages and those people working hard a higher rate. What we will see is, once again, the Albanese Labor government governing for the unions when productivity is falling through the floor. And what have they done? They couldn't even be bothered to read the report. The shadow Treasurer did—he came out and read it. But the Treasurer opposite—no, he can't be bothered with that.

At the same time, in a hit for further transparency, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have appointed the Treasurer's old boss as the Productivity Commissioner. This raises serious questions about the future ability of the commission to remain independent and able to question the government's actions.

Governments who are focused on their own political agenda and governing for their union donors stop delivering for the people of Australia, and as a result people suffer. That's why we're seeing inflation go through the roof. Everyone listening to this knows their rents are up, their housing repayments are up, their electricity is up and their food is up. That's what you get under a Labor-Greens government.

I rise to make a contribution to the private members' motion put forward by my friend and member for Forde. When the Albanese government was elected, we gave a commitment to address two critical issues that affect every citizen of this nation: the ever-increasing cost-of-living pressures and the priority for labour productivity growth. As a government it is important that we take real action to create a better future for all Australians.

Cost-of-living pressures have been a burden on the shoulders of hardworking families for far too long. Rising housing costs, utility bills, education expenses and healthcare fees have strained household budgets, leaving many struggling to make ends meet. As a Labor government, we firmly believe that every Australian should have access to a good standard of living where no one is left behind. To combat these challenges, we have devised a comprehensive plan. Affordable housing is a priority, and we have introduced a bill that will see us invest in the construction of affordable housing projects, ensuring that more families have access to secure and reasonably priced homes. Sadly, the opposition and their Greens mates in the Senate have stopped this bill and are stopping us from investing over $1.3 million per day into an affordable and social housing market.

Access to health care is vital, and this government has been working to reduce healthcare expenses. We have improved bulk-billing services by investing $3.5 billion to increase the bulk-billing rate. In the Hunter electorate, this will see rates triple in most areas. We are also investing in public housing and subsidising essential medications. Our focus on preventative health care will aim to reduce the long-term healthcare costs for families.

We believe education is the key to a prosperous future. As such, we have increased funding for public schools to make a quality education more accessible to all. The Albanese Labor government's fee-free TAFE plan is helping to reduce cost-of-living pressures for students, who are saving thousands of dollars in course fees. This is helping to equip our workforce with the skills needed to thrive in a rapidly changing economy. We are already delivering 180,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational education training places in 2023. Our new skills investments include over $400 million for a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational education and training places in high-skill-needs areas from 2024.

Addressing soaring utility costs and combating climate change have accelerated the transition to renewable energy sources. This not only will lead to lower electricity bills for consumers but also will create new job opportunities in a burgeoning green economy. The strength of our nation lies in the hard work and dedication of our workforce. To harness this potential and drive our economy forward we must address the challenges that hinder productivity growth. We have embarked on a significant infrastructure plan to upgrade transportation networks and invest in digital infrastructure. This will not only boost productivity in various sectors but also generate employment opportunities for our regions.

Encouraging research and development is paramount to fostering productivity growth. We will provide tax incentives and grants for businesses that are investing in innovation, supporting development of cutting-edge technologies and products. Unlike those opposite, we supported the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which will support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and economy, helping to create secure, well-paid jobs and to secure future prosperity and drive sustainable economic growth.

Unlike those opposite, we understand that the wellbeing of employees directly impacts their productivity. That is why the Labor government will also champion fair working conditions, ensuring that workers are treated with respect and are provided with a healthy work-life balance. That is why we are supporting the 'same job, same pay' legislation and improvements in the calculation of long service leave for casual workers. Labor recognises the importance of unions in advocating for workers' rights and ensuring fair pay for a fair day's work. We'll work to strengthen the voice of workers through union representation. By implementing these policies we aim to cultivate an environment that fosters productivity growth while also easing the financial burden on all Australian families.

It's great to be back and to be talking about such an important issue: productivity. The latest national accounts data shows that we're seeing the biggest slump in labour productivity since records began. And in the first year of the Albanese government, productivity growth has dropped to a historic low of minus 4.6 per cent. So, it's fallen off a cliff. Perhaps now that Wayne Swan's former chief of staff and the Treasurer's old boss, Chris Barrett, has been appointed as the chair of the Productivity Commission there might finally be a meeting to discuss its five-yearly Productivity Commission report that was released way back in March.

The government's indifference to the productivity challenge should alarm all Australians, because it shows an indifference to the challenges that Australians are facing—for example, the first tranche of industrial relations reforms. It's a war on employers, introducing multi-employer bargaining, and next is 'same job, same pay'. The government has forged ahead, introducing disastrous energy price caps that are strangling our manufacturing and resources industries and pumping the economic accelerator, with $185 billion of additional spending in the budget. And after a year in office interest rates have risen 11 times, energy bills are sky high, the cost of living is a struggle for millions of Australians, real wages are going backwards and inflation is beyond the target range.

What response do we get? We get a really glossy report—it's beautiful, actually—called Measuring what matters. It's a report that looks good, but it's using data that's two years old, telling us how well we used to be doing. I don't know who was in government then, but you could look it up! It's classic head-in-the sand stuff, and we need to be bolder about our challenges and how we approach them—like the target of $100 billion in national agricultural value by 2030, which is bold and achievable, and the Nationals were pleased to get behind it when in government.

I draw your attention to a recent report commissioned by Hort Innovation and delivered by the Centre for International Economics. Horticulture is obviously a very important industry in my electorate. The Economic contribution of Australian horticulture report predicts the sector will achieve a 22.5 per cent increase in combined value by 2030, to reach $21.8 billion. The chair of the NFF Horticulture Council, Jolyon Burnett, said:

The horticulture sector, including fruits, vegetables, nuts and also our turf, nursery and garden industries, has experienced solid growth over many years, backed by strong demand and innovation, with this trend set to continue.

Horticulture and food processing is such an important pillar of the economy, particularly in my electorate. I'll share a few insights from the report. For every dollar of value the horticulture industry generates, an additional 27.6c is injected into the economy. For every 100 jobs that exist in Australian horticulture, 21 more jobs are created in the support sectors, such as wholesale, trade, retail, transport and construction.

These projected productivity increases, which benefit all Australians, are under threat. So those opposite need to work with employers to end the energy price caps and embrace lower, incentive based tax measures instead of hiking taxes on franking credits, superannuation and investors. Businesses in my electorate need access to workers to fill the labour skills gaps. We had a program called the ag visa, which those opposite have scrapped, and employers who want to increase their productivity using foreign labour are finding it very hard to operate now because there's not enough Australian labour around.

To conclude, I want to talk about probably the biggest threat to productivity in my region and across Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia, and that is the disastrous policy in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. To rip out of the basin water that is used highly efficiently to grow clean, green produce that we consume here and export to Southeast Asia and beyond—great industries thrive in the Murray-Darling Basin as a result of being able to use the water in the rivers for irrigation. We have given so much back to the environment, and Labor want to take more of it. I can't think of anything that smashes productivity more than ripping away the water that's used to grow food and export and manufacture food. I think it's appalling, and I think those opposite should rethink their whole approach to the policy.

I turn to the member for Forde's motion about productivity, because a nationwide system that gives families access to low-cost, high-quality child care would start to dismantle the 'architecture of discrimination and difference' that limits women's full participation in the workforce. These are the wise words from Professor Rae Cooper from the University of Sydney. How does this relate to the member for Forde's private member motion? It directly relates to the Albanese government's cheaper child care package, which kicked in at the side of this month. It's an important investment that will boost productivity in our economy by helping to unlock the great potential of the women of Australia.

I understand that the LNP don't get it, and this notion wouldn't spring from their party room deliberations. I wonder sometimes if some of them wish it were the 1950s, where women's work was in the kitchen, not the boardroom. But back here in modern Australia, there are so many women who are keen to re-enter the workforce or to do extra hours at their place of employment, but the cost of child care has been holding them back. This is some low-hanging productivity fruit; an instant boost to productivity in one quick step. A mum is out there wanting to work an extra day or two in her job but is financially unable to do so because of childcare expenses, paying so much that it's barely worth packing the kid's backpack for that extra day at work.

A high-quality education is also important when it comes to boosting productivity. What better way to start that journey than by beginning with the professional delivery of early childhood education? What an excellent way to boost productivity for the long term—delivering high-value education reforms for Australian kids. Child care is the platform on which rest primary school, high school, university and voc ed. Get the basics right from the very beginning. I know that the Queensland state government is investing in this stage of education as well by making kindy free for Queensland kids from next year. What a great start to a child's education, coupled with the opportunity for women to re-enter the workforce earlier. That's a double productivity boost.

While we're talking about education, something I'm passionate about is investing in skills and training. It's another lever that governments can pull to boost the productivity machine. We're coming off almost a decade of an absence of government policy when it comes to skills and training. The coalition left behind a nation struggling to catch up. The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments vacated so many areas of public policy. So, of course, the nation is on the backfoot at the moment, because the LNP sat on their hands and didn't lift a finger—to mangle a metaphor—probably because they were sitting on those fingers. The coalition had a deliberate design principle of suppressing the wages and conditions of workers while not investing in skills and training.

Thankfully, Labor believes in training and skills development, and that is why the Albanese government is investing in institutions like TAFE. In Queensland, I saw the Newman government, back in the day, try to choke the life out of TAFE Queensland by sacking TAFE teachers and staff and ripping funds out of TAFEs, but that slash-and-burn approach didn't work out too well for Mr Newman. Labor has a different approach under Minister O'Connor. We're investing in our greatest resource—our people. We believe in Australians and believe they can be more. We're honouring our key election commitment to provide fee-free TAFE and vocational education places. Whether it's in the care sector, agriculture, hospitality and tourism, construction, technology or the need to ensure our sovereign capability in defence and manufacturing, we need to deliver skills to boost productivity. Again, it is left to this Labor government to clean up the mess and inactivity of the previous Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments.

Do you know how you boost productivity? You invest in people. You don't put up or refuse to pull down barriers for women to enter or re-enter the workforce. You don't defund and gut training and skills institutions like TAFE so that they're unable to deliver the skills and training that industry needs. For anyone who goes around businesses, you know that one of the first things they'll say is that they can't find enough bodies or enough trained bodies for their workplace. We know that you don't suppress wages and conditions for workers wherever and whenever you can, which was the playbook of the coalition government. If you don't invest in people, you don't boost productivity.

It's interesting that we're having a debate put forward by the member for Forde on productivity, but I'm yet to hear any actual solutions put forward by the speakers opposite. I live in hope. I'm sure there's one following, but we live in hope and await some elucidation from those opposite.

Member for Moreton, I have a good solution for you: appoint a minister for the digital economy, because the digital economy drives productivity. There is a solution for you. Thank you very much for that introduction, member for Moreton.

If we had a minister for the digital economy, that would drive costs down for business. It's not just me saying that. The Productivity Commission have also noted in their five-year report the importance of technology in driving productivity growth. Those opposite wouldn't be aware of that, because the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and those opposite haven't even bothered to get a briefing on the report from the Productivity Commission. We hear the standard talking points about investing in child care—absolutely!—although, interestingly, they call it a cheaper childcare policy. But that policy is not working, because fees have gone up greater than the subsidy because there's been no investment in supply—in increasing the places that are available. So while the name of the bill is very impressive—Labor can always name great bills—out in the community, people are still paying more for their child care. The member for Moreton should talk to some of the families in his community about it. So there's just one initiative: a minister for the digital economy.

This motion is really important, because productivity is a key economic driver to improve the cost of living. I recently attended a forum with Senator Jane Hume, the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living. We heard, and many members would know, the terrible stories of families and businesses struggling. We need to make sure that we do have positive solutions to drive down these challenges around the cost of living, inflation and wages. Again, we hear those opposite talk a lot about real wages. What they don't talk about is the fact that real wages are going backwards under this government. The real disposable income per hour worked has fallen by 10 per cent over the last year. So every Australian out there working every day to earn a dollar is getting less every day and every hour under this government. During the campaign, they spoke a lot about real wages and about how important real wages are—because, at the end of the day, that's what matters: what you've got at home and what you can afford to spend. But we don't hear this government talk about real wages anymore, because it's going backwards under this government.

In the RBA minutes from the last meeting, total real household income declined by four per cent in the March quarter. Australians are struggling. The economic crisis we face is the biggest challenge we face as Australians. Everyone should know that. You would think that the Prime Minister, the leader of this country, would have an interest in the economy and in how to provide some solutions to this. You would think that the Prime Minister would be getting monthly or, at least, quarterly briefings from our most senior economic adviser, Dr Steven Kennedy, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, about the economy and the solutions to make it easier for Australians. But we are wrong—not monthly, not quarter, not once. Not once in the last 12 months has this Prime Minister received a briefing on the economy from the most senior economic adviser in the Public Service. What does that tell you about this government and its priorities? Don't listen to what they say; listen to what they do.

Every Australian is struggling to put food on the table. I speak to small businesses in my community every day. Every week their costs are going up and their revenues are going down, and this Prime Minister does not care. If he cared, he would be getting briefings from the department on how to solve these problems. He doesn't care about the economic challenges we face. We have a Treasurer with a PhD in politics who is more concerned about making sure he gets the support of the backbench for his next step to his prime ministerial ambitions than he does about taking the tough decisions that Australians need to drive productivity. This government is not prepared to make these decisions, and it's Australians that suffer. I have a letter here from Beau, who is from Menzies Creek Primary School. I went to see them last week. Beau wrote me a letter about the cost-of-living crisis. That's how important it is to Australians but not to this Prime Minister.

It is absolutely galling to stand in this chamber and suffer through the hypocrisy of the Liberals opposite talking about productivity in our economy. Australians are suffering from flat productivity—flat productivity that was flat for the whole decade they were in government. They never had a reason to speak about productivity while it was flat for the decade that they were in government. In fact, under the former Liberal government, productivity growth was the slowest in 60 years. They oversaw an economy with the slowest productivity growth in more than half a century. Now they come rushing in here to attack various members of the executive, to make ludicrous claims about who's briefed who or who's chatted to who has some detrimental impact on the government's policy around economic growth and productivity investment. The reality is that we know there is a lot of work to be done. When the Liberals attack our economy and our supply chains and degrade our labour market over a decade, it takes a long time and a lot of hard work to repair. The budget measures that we've put in place, and they have been referred to by others in the chambers, are the first steps to working through that decade of neglect and degradation overseen by the Liberals.

We all agree that our economy needs productivity growth. It's a key driver of living-standard improvement across any economy. But we differ in our views about what that productivity improvement looks like and how it might be achieved. What we understand, about the Liberal Party's views on productivity growth, is that it is not at all real productivity growth. It's false. It's fake productivity growth. The only plan the Liberals ever have, to deliver this fake productivity growth, is by smashing the pay, the wages, of working Australians. They're never looking for efficiencies in productivity. They're never looking to grow the overall pie. They simply play tricks around industrial relations. They like to move the money out of the worker's pocket and put it into the profit margins of the businesses they seek to represent through this advocacy.

That's why we saw a decade of negative real wage growth under the Liberals as well. Not only did we see flat productivity for a decade but, even with their penny-pinching from workers, we saw a decade of negative real wage growth. But it wasn't an accident that Australians' wages went backwards for the last 10 years under the Liberals. As incompetent economic managers—as the modern Liberal Party are, and they make that clear on a daily basis for us—we know because they told us. They said that negative real wage growth was a deliberate design feature of their economy. They were their words: 'deliberate design feature'.

The former Liberal government's approach to workers in our country was to actively pay them less and less, in order to keep that government's poorly designed economy afloat. And Australians are suffering for that now. Our supply chain issues have come home to roost. By that, I'm speaking about the decade of degradation in our supply chains. We can go as far back as the Liberals closing the car industry to understand their ideological position on making things here in Australia. We've seen the war in Ukraine, the hangover from COVID and the effect on our ability to get the goods and services that we need in the international market at fair and reasonable prices.

The combination of rising prices through inflation and, of course, low wages growth over the last decade has meant that Australians are more under the pump in their household budgets than they have ever been before. We need only look at words the former Liberal government espoused themselves. This was a deliberate design feature of their economy. Our economy does need productivity, but the productivity gains must not be at the expense of one side or the other, workers or business; they must benefit our economy overall.

I remind the member for Hawke that the Liberals did not govern, cannot govern, without the National Party. I don't know how many references he made to the Liberals, but there's the Nationals too! The reason he ignored the National Party is that he's a new member. He's in a new seat, the seat of Hawke, to the north and north-west of Melbourne. He comes to this place with that city-centric view. They don't understand, those metropolitan members, the value of regional areas and the value of the Nationals in those regional areas.

It was those regional areas that carried productivity. It was those regional areas that carried the economy. It was those regional areas that carried the nation through COVID, through those dark days. We saw that, in the United States of America, they were burying people on Manhattan Island in an unprecedented situation. In Italy, they were putting coffins in churches because the morgues were filled to overflowing with people who had, tragically, passed away from that worldwide pandemic. That did not happen in Australia, and that did not happen because the Liberals and the Nationals made sure that we had our health system right, that we kept the doors of business open and that we kept workers in jobs.

I get tired of and I get angry at the fact that those members opposite come into this place time and time again and say, 'What did we get from a trillion dollars worth of Liberal Party debt?' It's wrong. The figure is nowhere near a trillion dollars. I'll tell you what we got from the debt that has been incurred. We made sure that tens of thousands of people are alive today who would not otherwise be contributing to the economy and who would not otherwise be alive. We saved people's lives. We put health first and we made sure that the economy was strong. Coming out of COVID, jobs went up and productivity went up.

Looking at this motion which has been brought to this place by the member for Forde, we see that the latest national accounts data shows that we have the biggest slump, the biggest decline, the greatest fall, in labour productivity since records began—and that's now. That's on this government's watch. That's on Labor's watch. In the first year of the Albanese government, productivity growth has dropped to a historic low of minus—that's negative—4.6 per cent. What a shame.

I heard the member for Moreton talk about skills and women in the workforce. Let's just have a look at the figures. Under the coalition, there were 815,600 female business operators. That's from August 2021 figures. There were 220,000 trade apprentices, a record high, and 11½ million Australians were benefiting from tax relief. Real wages were stronger and higher than they are at the moment. I know those opposite talk about wages, but, when you talk about wages, you talk about what you can do with the money that you earn. At the moment, what people are doing with the money that they earn is paying higher grocery prices and higher power bills. The member for Fairfax knows this well. He's prosecuting the case for energy relief, and yet we see in the member for Hawke's own state of Victoria a government so bereft of vision and so bereft of policy ideas that they have not only cancelled the Commonwealth Games but, worse than that, banned gas. 'No, you can't have gas in a new home.' Heaven forbid you turn a kitchen appliance on with gas in the future—go figure!

We had gas, we had iron ore and we had coal, which were pushing up productivity, jobs and balance of payments and which kept the economy going. What does this Labor government at both the federal and state level want to do? They want to shut the whole show down. That's what Labor does: they shut the whole shown down—'Who cares how much people are paying?' The sorts of things that Labor members are talking about have nothing to do with the sorts of things that people are talking about at barbecues, at their churches and at their sporting contests on the weekend. Shame, Labor.

I find it extraordinary in this debate that the Liberals can't even come in and defend their own motion and that they've kicked it off to their junior coalition partner, the Nationals, to defend. I guess they know it's a bit of a joke. Maybe it came from the shadow Treasurer's office: 'Quick—let's get up and make a motion about this.' The motion has been really deceptive in the way in which it's been put forward and it's really quite misleading, because, as we have said on this side and as everybody knows—all the leading economists are saying this—that dip that we had in productivity was mostly on their watch. It was in the lead-up to the last election. It was for that June quarter in 2022, which, of course, is retrospective. So it was actually on their watch that we had that dip. As speakers on my side have demonstrated, there are a number of factors as to why.

I want to touch on a couple of the contributions that we've had from those opposite. First is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The whole purpose of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is to make our water resources more productive. If you actually wanted to get on board with productivity, you would know that in the Murray-Darling Basin it is about tapping into the plan, tapping into that Commonwealth support to help farmers use their water more productively. The entire plan is about productivity. The member for Casey's contribution was basically a personal spray about the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. I thought the member for Casey was better than that. All he did was to have a spray at the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.

The speaker before him, the member for Riverina, in classic style, got up and had a rant about how great the regions are and how bad the Labor Party is. As a member for a regional area, I do know how hard our local businesses and workers are working. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you what they say is really hurting productivity growth. It is the lack of skilled workers, which is something that happened under the watch of those opposite, who did not provide the supply chain of skilled workers that we require. In some businesses it's a lack of any workers. They don't have enough staff to open for the extra hours which would improve their productivity. It is the collapse of enterprise bargaining under those opposite, the number of agreements that stalled in Fair Work and could not get approved. Let's remember the whole foundation of enterprise bargaining. It was about productivity gains and wages growth. Set up by former Prime Minister Paul Keating when he was Treasurer, the whole idea of reforming industrial relations back then, in the late nineties, was about offsetting wages growth with productivity gains. The enterprise bargaining system stalled, almost collapsed, under those opposite when they were in government, and we're seeing the impact on productivity.

Supply chains are another issue that has been raised. Again that was on their watch. We are still feeling the impact of not having the supplies we need in this country to help productivity. We've had the experience of electricians being told, 'Stay at home; you don't have work this week,' because they don't have the supplies needed to get the homes built. They're still waiting on supplies that are stuck in transit. We've had people in our hospital system have appointments cancelled because there aren't enough supplies to perform certain procedures. This didn't happen just in the last 12 months; this happened under the previous government's watch. We are working to clean this up.

What else are we doing to help clean up the mess of those opposite? We are tackling the skills deficit and the worker deficit. We are skilling up people by offering them free TAFE opportunities so that businesses can get the skilled workers they need. We've introduced cheaper child care, which is about making it possible for mums and dads—most times it's the mum—to return to work for a fourth or fifth day each week. Child care became unaffordable. It became cheaper for mum to stay at home and mind the kids on that fourth or fifth day than to return to work. That is what cheaper child care is about—it's about unlocking productivity potential by getting those skilled women back into the workforce sooner.

These are just a couple of the things we're doing. We're also fixing the NBN by finishing the job, by building the NBN that's needed. The National Reconstruction Fund is all about improvements in productivity in manufacturing. We're fixing the bargaining system and getting bargaining back on track. This is a topic where I wish I had another five minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, because there's a lot to say about improving productivity.

It's a very tough time to be in the workforce in Australia, because real wages are going backwards and costs are exploding. Official data published by the ABS paints a very stark and difficult picture, and the human suffering we hear of as MPs is even starker. We hear of people who are struggling so much with the household budget at the moment, with real wages going backwards and costs like rents, mortgage repayments and groceries going up. Probably the worst at the moment are electricity bills, which are absolutely exploding on the working people of this nation. As we see this happening, we take the opportunity to debate it in this chamber.

We are talking about the tough times that Australians are having right now, and the contribution from the government is effectively complete denial, a rebuttal of the proposition that it's tough out there. Frankly, if that's what they want to do, if they want to bury their heads in the sand, there will be a very significant political cost for them. No person in the street would be convinced by the arguments just given by government members to a family that's had to cancel a family holiday later in the year or take their kids out of private school because the household budget can't accommodate certain things that it used to. No one would be convinced, if they were stopped in the street, by arguments from the government—arguments like, 'No, things are much better than the statistics show.'

Perhaps, in fact, there is a government policy on the way to abolish the Australian Bureau of Statistics because they are unhelpfully pointing out, on such a regular basis, the reality which the government is denying. The former governor of the Reserve Bank Philip Lowe pointed out the productivity challenge. He has been sacked. It's all over for Philip Lowe because he told the truth about challenges in our economy, and particularly those that are underpinned by the lack of productivity growth in our economy—the negative growth. We have a circumstance now in our economy where real wages are going backwards. That means Australians are getting poorer. That's what that means, and that is the most important thing that we could be discussing and debating, right now, in this chamber. If you were a government that wanted to get re-elected, you'd be looking at that reality and proposing things that are going to turn it around. Nearly 18 months into this government, it's no longer acceptable to talk about the last government. We're happy to talk about our time in government. We're very proud of the custodianship that we conducted over this country—and we are the greatest country in the world. If those opposite want to dispute that all the time in these debates, they're welcome too.

We're proud of where the country was at 18 months ago, but we're very concerned, 18 months into this government, about where we are right now and where we are going. And that is the view that you get when you go out and knock on doors, telephone constituents and go to electorate events. People are struggling. They're doing it tough. They want a government that understands that, takes it seriously and has some serious solutions that are going to turn that around. We don't have that, we know, because when we have debates like this in the chamber, the opportunity to point out all the things that are going to turn that around is not taken by the government. They obsess about things from when they were in opposition. They don't realise they're the government, evidently, or they don't want people to realise that they are the government—that they are almost at the 18-month mark and it is coming up to a point where it is ludicrous to suggest that 18 months is not enough time to make any meaningful impact on the lives of Australians.

What Australians know is that they're going backwards under this government. Regrettably, as statistics come out, we see that this is only getting worse for Australians. This motion about Labour productivity—the statistics you simply cannot dispute are happening on the watch of this government. Australians are going backwards. Australians have less money to meet their household costs that are going up dramatically. We need to take that seriously and not just have important debates like this but have a government that brings forward meaningful measures to address it. Instead, government members in this debate dismiss it and say it's not happening. The statistics and data don't lie, but, most importantly, the people of this country know it because they're feeling it themselves. And if you listen to them, they'll tell you. If we've got have a government that's not listening to the people, then they won't be a government for very long. That's a decision of members of the government, but we in the opposition are going to take the opportunity in this place to talk about these challenges because ordinary Australians are hurting.

In the 1980s, every parrot in pet shops across the country was an expert in microeconomic reform. Now, it seems as through everybody is a productivity pundit—and fair enough, productivity is very important. But what we see today is the worst in cherrypicking and looking at numbers completely out of context. Those opposite have taken a one-off number and suggested something systemic. In fact, when you look at this number, it is a classic case of not looking at the cyclicality and not looking at the context.

What happened, of course, is that a couple of years ago we had COVID, and the entire shape of the economy changed artificially. Rightly, a number of sectors of the economy were shut down for quite some period of time. What that meant was the sectoral change in our economy led to higher-productivity industries taking up a greater share of economic activity. There was always going to be a rebalancing of the economy as the COVID restrictions unwound. There was always going to be a shift back towards lower-productivity industries as they opened up. So these short-term figures reflect, by and large, cyclical factors that were always going to happen.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for next sitting.

I know there are millions of Australians who were at home watching the first part of my contribution to the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, and they were anxious throughout the winter recess for me to continue my contribution on this important bill and to find out how it finishes. Allow me to indulge all of those people at home. This is a really important bill, and we are here in this place back debating this bill, the amendments to our Public Service, because we fundamentally believe in our Public Service. We believe in the importance of having frank and fearless advice coming to government, and we see the consequences of when that dissolves or when that is watered down.

Over the winter break we had the presentation of the royal commission into robodebt's report to the Governor-General, and I think for every member of this place it is a moment to reflect on when that breaks down, when the Public Service in this country loses its sense of ethics and loses its sense of what is in the national interest—led by a government who had an agenda to come after some of the most vulnerable people in our society, while also getting the advice that it was potentially an illegal scheme, yet choosing to pursue sending out automated debt notices to vulnerable people all around the country. Instead of having any shred of accountability, what the former government did was just continue with their program of targeting vulnerable Australians with their robodebt scheme.

This royal commission shone a very bright light on not only that awful piece of public maladministration but also the violations of many rights of Australians, where people deserve not to be intimidated or bullied by their government into paying illegal debt notices, where people should be free from that. You think about some of the ways in which they were frivolous with the expenditure of public money, when they spent $30 million on an airport that was only worth $3 million after they'd purchased the land off a Liberal Party donor, yet they went after people who had very little money and who were receiving public social safety net benefits. They were the people to which the former government, led by former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, former ministers Stuart Robert and Alan Tudge and many others, sought to administer this robodebt scheme.

We want to make sure we are investing in our Public Service. We don't want to see the mistakes of previous administrations, where they completely gutted the capability of the Public Service. We want to lift up the capability, the culture and the service the Public Service gives to not only the government but also, most importantly, the people we are all privileged to represent. That's what this bill is all about. The bill will strengthen the Public Service's core purpose and values, build its capability and expertise and provide institutional support for the indispensable principles of good governance, accountability and transparency.

Many of the measures in this bill go back to the recommendations in the 2019 Thodey review, which were given such short shrift by the previous government. The bill makes it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. This will stop the dangerous trend in recent years of ministers trying to structure their departments to suit their political agendas and installing their acolytes at all levels of the Public Service. It was extraordinary that the former Prime Minister appointed his former chief of staff to lead the Public Service. It is hardly any wonder that we saw the Public Service being used in political operations and in political cover-ups as occurred under the previous administration.

The bill will install regular capability reviews as a requirement and will mandate at least one long-term insight briefing each year. This will allow better assessment of its performance and will give positive reinforcement to those members of the Public Service who are doing their jobs in the way they ought to be done. Australia is best served by a strong, independent, non-partisan and confident Public Service, by a system in which public servants know they can give ministers honest advice without the fear of political retribution or a rapid end to their Public Service careers. This will be a long process, because the damage done by former governments is immense. But this bill makes a start on a new generation of public service, and I commend it to this place.

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. The Australian Public Service is the skeleton upon which the body of our society is built, from our healthcare system to tax obligations, employment systems, social services, migration and many more. In my electorate of Fowler our constituents come to see us most of the time with concerns about the competency, efficiency and accuracy of the Public Service departments in handling their cases. For example, for a constituent who was on unemployment benefits of $850, Centrelink showed that $495 would be deducted from his benefits due to a deduction of immediate payment. Upon investigation, there was no such deduction of immediate payment. Centrelink had made a mistake. They offered a solution to fix it within seven days or so. Due to this error, this man was unable to pay his weekly rent and bills. The only comfort he was offered was to be able to contact the urgent payment request line, on which he had to wait for one hour and 37 minutes and was eventually cut off. There wasn't even a Vietnamese translator option to explain the long wait. Can you imagine waiting for one hour and 37 minutes and not understanding fully what is said on the line and then getting cut off abruptly? This inefficiency is what's wrong with our Public Service system and processes. We're now in 2023, and with technology at hand, systems and processes can be set up to better serve and deliver for the Australian public.

Another local constituent of mine was rejected for NDIS housing on the basis that he did not have enough physical impairment. I met with the constituent and I can attest that he was paralysed from the waist down and had a speech impairment. He was living in a rental house which his support coordinator had reported was not suitable for him, as he struggled with accessibility and couldn't reach basic utilities like the kitchen and bathroom sinks. How did our Public Service system enable an assessment that this constituent did not have enough physical impairment? If our system is set up to such a level, where accurate assessment couldn't be achieved, what hope do we have for an equitable and fair society?

I commend the Albanese government for taking the initiative to reform the Public Service through this bill. I hope this reform will help build public trust and confidence in the Australian Public Service. And I hope some of these reforms are reflected in other aspects of the Public Service, such as the Social Services and NDIS portfolio, where many of our residents have direct contact with Australian Public Service systems. I look forward to seeing Minister Bill Shorten address some of these shortcomings within his review of the NDIS. However, I would like to stress that in attempting to reform the Public Service the government must also be careful when it comes to spending the taxpayer dollars of hardworking Australians. To put this into perspective, it will cost $40.8 million for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Public Service Commissioner to reform and strengthen the APS and $25 million over the next year for an APS capability reinvestment fund.

These are not small numbers. For example, $25 million is the number that Fowler missed out on and so missed out on its health and wellness centre, which would have provided seniors and people going through rehabilitation after major operations a place to recover and a place where their families could stay with them through this period, like Ronald McDonald House.

Before I go further, I want to make my position clear that my feedback on this bill is in no way intended to undermine the hard work of the Public Service officers and people employed to do their best within the current environment and framework to support the Australian community. I am grateful for their work and service. My feedback is directed at the overall Public Service structures and practices.

In 2019, the eminent David Thodey delivered an independent review of the Australian Public Service, resulting in 40 recommendations that could result in far-reaching change. The review outlined that government support was critical for effective APS transformation.

We now see the Albanese government is hoping to transform the Australian Public Service by implementing some of the recommendations in the bill. In the spirit of the Thodey report, there are four core elements that would be addressed through this bill: (1) embodies integrity in everything it does, (2) puts people and business at the centre of policy and services, (3) is a model employer and (4) has the capability to do its job well.

The first step was to ensure the existing APS values would require the Public Service to be impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful and ethical within their role. The government will implement recommendation 5 of the review, which sought to add the value of stewardship to the APS values and in which public servants would need to support the public interest and understand the long-term impacts of what it does. Essentially, this would require all of those in the APS to foreshadow the future and implications, which, realistically, may be beyond some in the service to do so because of their capability and experience. It's important to consider that most decisions made are made by senior officials and departmental secretaries. APS officers at a junior level would have little control, such as what occurred with robodebt.

If you look at the royal commission's report findings for robodebt published on 7 July 2023, you will find there was an absolute failure from the senior public servants who oversaw the wrongdoings of the scheme. They knew about it but did not act on the information, allegedly misled their staff members and failed to do anything of substance to rectify the debt inaccuracy. The result was the welfare system severely let down Australians who relied on it. Peoples' lives were severely impacted because of the actions of the bureaucrats involved. To add insult to injury, the very same public servant who had spearheaded the robodebt scheme was then quietly promoted to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to lead the AUKUS scheme with a $900,000 salary package. While that public servant has now been stood down, it is situations such as this that only deepen the mistrust in the Public Service. While I'm not against the addition of the stewardship, it will be in the best interests to narrowly define it so that it applies to APS employees who do hold the power to mitigate risk and make decisions for the good of the public interest.

Other recommendations that were outlined in the bill was a proposed insertion of section 64A, whereby a secretaries board must cause at least one long-term insights report to be prepared each financial year and it must be made public. This is to address Thodey's focus on building capability and so that the workforce remains robust. I can appreciate that this will allow greater transparency and potentially keep the APS being future fit. However, I note that Thodey's point on building capability also requires developing deeper professional expertise, greater diversity, real inclusion, digital capabilities and dynamic management structures and ways of working. I ask the government how can we give more significant effect to these points in this section of the bill and how can we structurally alter APS governance so that building capabilities are centralised?

While the bill doesn't take into account some recommendations of the Thodey report, I am not convinced that it makes the most of the budget allocated for the reform that the Albanese government envisioned. The Thodey report recommendations highlighted the need for innovations, the nature of jobs and productivity. These were not particularly addressed in this bill. If we are spending millions of dollars to reform the APS, what form of innovation are we introducing so that the APS can operate effectively, efficiently and with integrity?

In recommendation 27, Thodey proposes that the Secretaries Board could establish protocols to support timely research publication and trial a Public Service innovation incubator to drive innovative approaches to policymaking. It's expected that there will be 191,861 staff within the general government sector for this financial year. It would be wise that the bill implement changes that can encourage better departmental practices, structure, innovation and diversity.

One Thodey recommendation which I believe is critical is No. 25:

Strengthen the APS by recruiting, developing and promoting more people with diverse views and backgrounds.

This has not been addressed in this bill. This particular recommendation also gives effect to the overarching point of building capabilities within APS. Thodey recommends:

Secretaries Board to set a 2030 diversity goal: the APS to reflect and understand the people and communities it serves.

Australia has grown to be multicultural, and we can no longer operate with a few voices to make decisions that affect a diverse population. As you would expect, diverse voice in the Public Service matter, which is evident in the constituent cases shared earlier in my speech. A particularly relevant quote from Frances Adamson, DFAT secretary, within the Thodey review notes:

We in DFAT cannot possibly provide the advice that we provide to our government, or be effective internationally unless we are broadly representative of the Australian people, unless we can draw on a wide range of experiences, and thoughts from our own workforce.

Diversity in workforces, particularly in the Public Service, will ensure adequate cultural representation and share lived experiences, expertise and challenges. Thodey states that a whole-of-service diversity and inclusion strategy within APS will ensure that the service takes advantage of people's talents from all corners of life and their varying perspectives. An APS workforce with a promoted focus on diversity and inclusion will assist with delivering critical targets, as the service delivered will be able to reflect the needs of the wider Australian community.

According to Thodey's implementation guidance, targets are to be set for:

… a transformational lift in representation of people from diverse backgrounds at the EL and SES levels …

And, most importantly, amending the Public Service Act 1999 to strengthen the employment principle on diversity. To give effect to Thodey's implementation guidance, I ask the government to consider amending section 10A and 18 of the Public Service Act 1999 to promote and foster a diverse perspective, which is in line with Thodey's recommendation that the APS should address the need for greater representation of diverse groups and perspectives.

Overall, transforming the APS is a significant process, and caution must be taken to ensure that Australian taxpayers' money is not taken for granted in this reform, especially in the current economic climate with the cost-of-living crisis. Although this bill proposes some commendable changes, the government can do much more to transform the APS and incorporate more of Thodey's recommendations.

I'd like to thank the minister for her work on this important issue. I'm grateful to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, as it will not only provide transformational and enduring changes to the Australian Public Service but also strengthen the core purpose and values of the APS at a time when it's so sorely needed.

I have been very impressed by the quality of the public servants that I've dealt with in my time in parliament. I've also been very impressed with the public servants that have worked in areas like Centrelink, the taxation department and health care across state and federal public services in my time not only as a politician but also working as a doctor in the public health system. Indeed, when working in our public hospital system, I saw my role as being part of the Public Service.

But I was shocked with the previous government's approach to people requiring government support. I was so shocked that I felt that they no longer understood the word 'service'. In my role of running my own medical practice, on numerous occasions I had to deal with the taxation department and other government servants. I was asked to provide records of employment, payments from hospitals, Medicare payments et cetera and receipts for expenditure, and sometimes I found it very difficult to provide those documents in a timely way to the taxation department, Medicare et cetera. I'm pretty organised, and I had my practice pretty well organised after almost 40 years, and I sometimes found it difficult.

In 2018, I met a family with a couple of boys they looked after who had intellectual disability. The father himself had an intellectual disability. He had received a robodebt letter and was finding it difficult to provide to Centrelink documents that went back many years, such as unemployment payments et cetera, for his own small business. He ran a home maintenance and lawnmowing service and was trying his best to provide for his family, even though he himself had struggled with education. I went to the minister responsible, and the response I got was shocking—absolutely shocking!

To me, it seemed that the previous government no longer understood the words 'service' and 'public'. Whilst they were willing to pay millions of dollars to consultative services for reports that were often completely meaningless, they were prepared to punish people in the most difficult circumstances in our society. I'd like to thank Linda Burney, the previous shadow minister for government services, for the help she gave me in that time in making us aware of the robodebt process. I am still shocked by the response of the previous government, and I still cannot understand why they pushed forward over a number of years in this process. Despite any advice about how bad the Centrelink retrieval of debt process was, they still refused to act, and they should hang their heads in shame about it.

Robodebt has shaken not only my trust but the trust of our society in the Australian Public Service. I know that the frontline workers do their best, in sometimes very difficult circumstances, to deal with the public who are very stressed, but there was a complete failure of leadership in the higher echelons of the Public Service and a complete failure of political courage and political understanding of the importance of providing support to the most disadvantaged in our society. As Justice Murphy put it, robodebt and the management of it by both politicians and public servants was a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure of public administration' and government.

In 2021, I spoke in this place about how my electorate of Macarthur had lost people to suicide because of the stress that robodebt had placed upon them. I saw it firsthand. People in my electorate felt and lived firsthand how the former coalition government and those senior public servants who backed in this terrible scheme did not care for them, their families or their attempts to deal with such a pathetic witch-hunt, known as robodebt.

Even the language the prime minister was using—of 'lifters and leaners'—was shameful, and I hope we never see it again. It's import to note that the current Prime Minister and the current Minister for Government Services, and all of my Labor colleagues and I all called robodebt out for what it was: a witch hunt against the most vulnerable in our society. We rightfully called for a royal commission, and it was a really important thing that the Prime Minister led us to do. The current Leader of the Opposition also had an opinion on this, but rather than joining us in protecting individuals, Peter Dutton called the royal commission into this ridiculous scheme 'nothing more than a witch hunt'. That was his view, which shows us everything we need to know about where he stood on this in the past.

During all of this, the APS had certain individuals unwilling to acknowledge where their duty must lie—with the Australian people. That's why this legislation is important. It benefits not only current and future members of the Australian Public Service but also all Australians, as trust and accountability must be restored into our Australian Public Service. The independent review of the Australian Public Service led by David Thodey concluded that the APS lacked a unified purpose, was too internally focused and had lost capability in important areas. I would suggest that the capability they lost was the ability to understand what the word 'service' means. It's very concerning to hear this, but I do have faith in the people of the APS to turn things around and demonstrate to the Australian people that they can be trusted, that they can be trusted to deal with complex issues in a compassionate way, and that all people in Australia have a right to feel valued by their government.

This bill is not a bill to damage or criticise the Public Service but rather to strengthen it. It's an opportunity to reshape and reform and strengthen the APS to provide the Australian people with the public service that they deserve. This is especially true during challenging times, and we are in challenging times. We know that economies around the world have been faltering, and it is very important to understand that often those on the lowest incomes are the most stressed. They are the ones that deal most with government support agencies like Centrelink. They are the ones that we have to support and we have to strengthen our responses to the stresses that they are undergoing. This is what the previous government did not do. In fact, they turned the question around. They damaged most the people who were most vulnerable. They didn't support the most vulnerable. Rather, they supported their mates in big business, and that is a very sad thing. In tough and challenging times we need to stand with the most vulnerable, and that includes people that deal with Centrelink, the NDIS, the taxation department, the health department et cetera.

They've worked tirelessly over the last few years, particularly the years of the pandemic, bushfires and floods et cetera. We rely on them to do the right thing and, thankfully, virtually all of the frontline workers did do the right thing. Where we were let down was in the level of scrutiny by the higher levels of the Public Service, the lack of appropriate advice to government and the failure of the government to understand the importance of supporting the most vulnerable.

It's through moments of crisis, like COVID and the bushfires, where we truly see the best of our public servants. With some of the work they did in the north-coast floods, in New South Wales, and the local floods in the Hawkesbury-Nepean area, the public servants were the strength of our society. They were absolutely fantastic in the tireless support they provided to people undergoing some real-life tragedies.

Our government's APS reform agenda has four priorities as part of our broader plan to restore the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions. It is to embody integrity in everything it does and will require the secretaries board to oversee the development of a single unifying APS purpose statement and review it every five years. All agency heads will be required to uphold and promote the new APS purpose statement, in addition to the APS values and employment principles. Further, it will clarify and strengthen the provisions of the act, making it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. This will reaffirm that the APS's apolitical nature and is integral in upholding faith in the Public Service.

Development of the APS purpose statement must be informed by consultation with the APS and the general public, very importantly. We need to listen to the people that we serve. The second priority is for the APS to put people and business at the centre of policy and services. Thirdly, the APS needs to be a model employer and, lastly, the APS should have capability to perform its job well. We need to fund it properly. We need to stop outsourcing to profit-hungry consultancy groups who do not provide independent reports to government.

It should be noted that the APS has and continues to provide quality and dedicated service to the Australian public, but this bill is about strengthening its ability to provide these services. It will require the publication of APS employment results and an action plan that responds to difficulties with employment. It will foster a culture of transparency and accountability for improvement within agencies. It also adds an APS value of stewardship. APS values articulate the culture and operating ethos of the APS. They reflect the expectations of the relationship between public servants and the government and the people that we all serve.

Informed by consultation, the bill outlines the stewardship value as meaning the APS bills capability and institutional knowledge, and that will be very important, in the 21st century, across a whole range of issues. Stewardship involves learning from the past and looking to the future. This is a government that is committed to supporting the very best values of the Australian Public Service and I fully support the bill. We will consult. We will make our APS more diverse, more accountable and more transparent, and this is very important. This bill provides greater support and clarification for the APS itself, and it is important that the sector helps shape, govern and run our nation in an appropriate manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Here we go again—sports rorts, car porks, the Community Health and Hospitals Program, robodebt, and now revelations in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald about the careless, to say the least, administration of offshore processing.

Most notably, despite institutional concerns about the risks of corruption and the fact that the AFP warned the Department of Home Affairs in 2018 about an Australian businessman being under investigation for bribery, one month later it awarded his company a $9.3 million contract to provide accommodation for asylum seekers and refugees on Nauru. The businessman was subsequently charged and convicted of bribery. These latest revelations make it even more urgent that the government heed earlier calls from the crossbench and the member for North Sydney for a royal commission into offshore processing—at the very least, an independent inquiry into the operation of a regime that has cost the Australian taxpayer billions of dollars, much of it going to contracts in apparently dubious circumstances.

And then there's robodebt. The report of the royal commission into robodebt is a remarkable document, not least for the opening remarks from the commissioner, Catherine Holmes. In her preface—and it's worth quoting at some length—she notes:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the scheme's lack of legal foundation coming to light. Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances—the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme's continuance

Perhaps senior public servants had been taking their lead from the member for Cook, who sent a clear message about what he expected from the Public Service and how he viewed accountability when he addressed them in August 2019:

Only those who put their name on a ballot can really understand the significance of that accountability. As much as you might appreciate the Westminster system, until you put your name on a ballot—that changes everything.

That sounds a long way from the Westminster system's longstanding convention that a credible democracy demands frank and fearless advice from its public service.

The Goldstein community made it clear when I was elected that they regarded integrity as central to the quality and credibility of Australian democracy and government. The way they voted was in no small measure a reflection of their concerns that they were losing faith in the integrity of our political leadership and, by extension, our Public Service. This government frequently claims to be seeking to reclaim the centrality of a frank and fearless Public Service to its decision-making. But there remains a gap between what it says and what it does.

Take the Housing Australia Future Fund, for example. In my speech during the second reading debate I raised concerns about its governance—about the government's claims of independence for its council. As I said, strong oversight and clear guidelines for any grants paid are critical for the integrity of the fund and public confidence in it. We don't want this to be at risk of another colour-coded-spreadsheet exercise. This legislation seeks to install stewardship as a value for the Australian Public Service. Former Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger, among other former senior public servants, questions the wisdom of applying this to the entire Public Service. He argues that stewardship should be a required value for departmental secretaries, the secretaries board and the SES. However, he adds that it is not a value that every APS employee is in a position to uphold but that failure to do so would be a breach of the code of conduct.

One central question for me is: what are the government's plans for strengthening the merit based processes as recommended by the Thodey review for the appointment of departmental secretaries and to constrain the ability of the Prime Minister of the day to terminate appointments? Since the mid-1990s we've seen several steps taken by executive government that have made it less likely that the Public Service will provide the frank and fearless advice that voters clearly want: first, the decision in the Keating years to put departmental secretaries on five-year contracts, further reducing their security; second, the Howard government's subsequent decision to sack six departmental heads when it came to power; and, third, the Abbott government's decision to cap Public Service numbers. That final decision led not to a cut in spending but to a diversion of taxpayers' money to external consultants—around $10 billion at least in the case of the big four.

There is also the question of consultants being employed on long-term contracts to sit alongside public servants and essentially do the same tasks. I saw the consequences of similar management practices during my close to three decades at the ABC. These days no less than 40 per cent of those working at the national broadcaster are employed on short-term contracts. This has had a significant impact on staff morale and, I would argue, on the ABC's performance and public confidence in the organisation. It seems to me that these are similar, if not identical, to the challenges facing the broader Public Service. If this government is to meet its stated ambition of restoring the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions, surely merit in appointments should be the number one priority.

I worry that this bill is a form of virtue signalling. As Mr Podger and others intimate, it provides little substance and more significant reforms will simply slip off the government's agenda. It would help if the government were to provide assurances that that's not the case and, if not, how it plans to advance the more significant recommendations of the Thodey review and with what timetable.

With that in mind, I move the following second reading amendment as circulated in name:

That all words after "time" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"as the government responds to the recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission, the results of the Secretaries Board Integrity Taskforce review are made public and the recommendations of the Thodey Review on appointments and termination of Secretaries are acted upon".

This would, in effect, delay this bill until those undertakings are resolved and test the government's bona fides that the Minister for the Public Service meant what she said when she declared that the government would clean up the gutting of the Public Service and the outsourcing of billions of dollars of work to consultants and contractors. Intentions are one thing; actions are another. Taxpayers who voted for integrity at the last election deserve to have confidence that this government will act rather than just talk.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Today I rise to support the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, a crucial piece of legislation that seeks to strengthen and safeguard the Australian Public Service. This bill has been carefully crafted, taking into account the insights and inputs of many stakeholders, including employees, representative groups, agency experts, the public and the Community and Public Sector Union. It aims to reinvigorate the core purpose and values of the Australian Public Service, enhance its capability and expertise, and promote good governance, accountability and transparency.

Historically, the APS has been a pillar of stability and service to the Australian people, providing critical support and assistance across various sectors. The APS has been, and always should be, relied upon to give full, frank and fearless advice. Throughout its existence, the APS has played pivotal roles in shaping the nation and delivering vital services to our citizens. From the early days of the federation to the present, public servants have been a key partner, with government, to deliver positive change and progress.

One remarkable example of the APS's impact on Australia's development is seen in our nation's response to World War II. The APS played a critical role in mobilising resources, managing essential services and coordinating efforts to support the war effort. Public servants then worked tirelessly to ensure that the country's infrastructure and essential services were maintained, even amongst the challenges of wartime. Their dedication and commitment to duty were instrumental in steering Australia through those dark days and laying the groundwork for postwar recovery and prosperity.

In addition to national crises, public servants have been instrumental in advancing various sectors that underpin our growth and prosperity. For instance, the APS has significantly shaped policies and programs related to health care, education, social welfare and environmental conservation. Public servants have been crucial in implementing initiatives to improve public health, provide access to quality education, support vulnerable populations and protect Australia's unique biodiversity. Their expertise and dedication to the public interest have been essential in fostering a more inclusive and sustainable society.

However, there have been instances where the role of the APS has been undermined and its integrity compromised by shortsighted policies. In 1993 there were 165,000 Commonwealth public servants; at the end of 2020 there were 148,000. While Australia's population grew by over eight million in that time, the public sector was drastically reduced. Throughout the years, the significant decline in the capacity of the APS to offer independent advice to ministers has been witnessed. The decline of this is partly due to the deliberate attacks by successive Liberal-National governments on the APS's ability to provide objective advice. Rather than relying on the expertise and knowledge of public servants, certain parties have chosen to outsource crucial work to an ever-expanding group of consultants and politically aligned think tanks. Consequently, an echo chamber was created where ministers were fed information that aligned with their preconceived notions, while warnings of potential risks and consequences of their actions were overlooked. The inevitable outcome has been a series of disastrous consequences for our nation.

We need look no further than the Morrison government's failed robodebt scheme to see the evidence of the significant and severe consequences of the attacks on the APS. The income compliance program known as robodebt was introduced as a pilot program in early 2015, and, despite mounting concerns about its legality and ethical implications, it continued to evolve and be prosecuted. Tragically, this unjust program burdened approximately 435,000 vulnerable Australians with an astronomical $1.8 billion of illegal debt. Exploiting discrepancies between Centrelink and ATO income information, robodebt left countless individuals and families reeling under the weight of unjust financial demands. The impact on those affected cannot be overstated. They faced financial hardships, emotional distress and a profound loss of trust in the very system and service that was meant to support them.

The final report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme delivered by Commissioner Holmes left no doubt about the disastrous and long-term effects of robodebt on the Australian people and the Australian Public Service. The report pulled no punches, describing robodebt as a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure of public administration'. Throughout the 46-day duration of the royal commission, heart-wrenching public hearings provided a platform for more than 100 witnesses to share their harrowing accounts of being unfairly targeted by their own government. The testimonies depicted a sense of powerlessness, as these individuals had no means to fight back against the callous wrongs inflicted upon them by an unjust system administered by the former Liberal government and their gutted Public Service.

The report findings served as a stark reminder of the need to rectify past mistakes and reinforce the integrity of the APS in service to the Australian people. That is what this bill is seeking to do. The robodebt royal commission laid bare the consequences of neglecting the principles that underpin the APS and emphasised the critical importance of safeguarding the integrity and purpose of our Public Service. The robodebt scandal stands as a sobering testament to the profound impact of neglect and reduction in staffing within the Australian Public Service, and we should learn from the mistakes of the robodebt scandal.

This ill-fated program riddled with errors and ethical shortcomings directly undermined the capacity and expertise of the APS to function effectively. As public servant numbers were reduced, their voices were also silenced. The APS faced significant challenges in upholding its core purpose of serving the public interest and providing independent advice to ministers. The reduction in staffing lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and expertise, leaving critical gaps in the administration of essential programs. Consequently, the former government sought shortcuts and outsourced essential functions to external entities, contributing to the flawed design and implementation of the robodebt program. Public servants who might have raised red flags or advocated for better alternatives found themselves restrained by reduced resources and a lack of authority to challenge questionable decisions of the former government. Moreover, the lack of staffing and resources within the APS hindered the ability to conduct regular and thorough assessments of the program's impact. This negligence prolonged the suffering of those unfairly and illegally targeted by robodebt as there were inadequate mechanisms in place to recognise and rectify the program's flaws promptly.

Throughout the royal commission's proceedings, it became increasingly evident that the APS's neglect and reduction in staffing played a significant role in allowing such an unjust program to persist for as long as it did. With the critical capacity to provide independent advice diminished by the former government, the APS was unable to intervene effectively and the consequences for vulnerable Australians were severe.

What I find absolutely appalling is that robodebt's architect, the member for Cook, despite all the evidence returns to this place without an ounce of regret or contrition. And, despite the fact that Commissioner Holmes found that he allowed cabinet to be misled over the legality of the program, we still have not had an apology from the member for Cook. Adverse findings against him made by the commissioner have been sensationally rejected, yet he stays here in this place while defending his role in this shameful chapter in our Public Service history. The robodebt scandal serves as a stark reminder of the vital importance of nurturing and supporting the Australian Public Service to ensure that the APS can fulfil its core purpose and values, investing in its capability and resourcing.

The proposed Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 represents a critical step in rebuilding and reinforcing the APS's integrity and capacity. The proposed changes have been carefully designed to reinforce the core values of the APS, promote long-term stewardship and foster a culture of transparency and accountability.

Importantly, the proposed amendments clarify and strengthen provisions in the act to safeguard the APS from undue political influence and interference. Ministers will be prohibited from directing agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions, reaffirming the APS's apolitical nature. This measure is crucial in ensuring the Public Service remains impartial and focused on what they are there to do—delivering the best outcomes for our nation.

To build the capacity and expertise of the APS, this bill mandates regular and independent and transparent capability reviews every five years for each department of state, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. These reviews will assess organisational strengths and areas for development, with findings and action plans publicly released. By engaging in self-assessment, the APS will be able to continuously improve and adapt to meet the evolving needs of the Australian people.

Additionally, this bill empowers a secretaries board to commission regular long-term insight reports that explore medium-term and long-term trends, and risks and opportunities facing our nation. The APS can build trust in its expertise and credibility by gaining a deeper understanding of crosscutting issues that matter to all Australians.

In support of good governance, accountability and transparency, this bill requires agencies to publish their APS census results in an action plan to respond to them. This measure will foster an increased culture of transparency and will encourage continuous improvement within agencies, ensuring that the Public Service remains accountable to the people it serves.

Moreover, the bill mandates that decision-making within an agency be made at the lowest appropriate classification for those decisions. By avoiding unnecessary hierarchy and empowering APS employees, this measure ensures that decisions are made efficiently and effectively, contributing to a more agile and responsive public service.

This bill is a commitment from this government to rebuild trust and confidence in our Public Service, ensuring that it stands as a beacon of integrity, dedication and service to the Australian people. By reinforcing the core values, enhancing capability and promoting accountability, this bill intends to re-establish a Public Service that is well-equipped to face future challenges while remaining true to its fundamental purpose. The robodebt incident was a stark reminder of the consequences of neglecting the principles that underpin the Public Service. It underscored the importance of maintaining the APS as an institution that serves the people with fairness, empathy and transparency.

The proposed changes of this amendment bill represent a significant step towards rectifying past mistakes and building a stronger and more resilient Public Service. The APS, much like various facets of our life, has endured its share of challenges over the past decade. Through a storm, Australian public servants have demonstrated resilience and determination. However, the toll of the last decade has been substantial, with many facing immense pressure and uncertainty about their job security. Instead of investing in skills and in permanent jobs in the Public Service, we have all witnessed the Liberals and Nationals outsource those roles, issuing lucrative contracts to big consultancies to suit their political purposes. As the rivers of gold flowed into private pockets our Public Service struggled to maintain its vital functions, but this legislation marks a turning point in that journey.

We are committed to effecting change, and this bill signifies the beginning of that transformation. There is much work ahead, but the Albanese Labor government is resolute in our mission to restore the strength and integrity of the Australian Public Service. By doing so, we'll bolster the public sector's efficiency and ensure that it remains a pillar of stability, service and trust for the people of Australia.

The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 comes to us in the context of widespread concerns about the capability and independence of our Public Service—whether they are still willing and able to provide the frank and fearless advice on which our system government depends. There are untold recent revelations and scandals, such as those unearthed under the robodebt royal commission, where independence was clearly lacking. And what was the consequence of that lack of independence? A failed, illegal policy was implemented, which ultimately drove some Australians to take their own lives and caused untold misery in other people's lives. It was utterly unconscionable and must never happen again.

To prevent it from happening again we need deep reform in our public sector. But my worry is that this bill is not delivering the deep reform that we need. It is delivering a series of tweaks, each one sensible and worthy of our support, but it falls well short of what the Australian people were promised and reasonably expected from this government. It is not enough for this government to do slightly better and to have slightly more integrity than its predecessor. The government has spoken extensively on the robodebt scandal in this House, in the papers and across the political divide, but, frankly, when it comes to implementing changes that will make a significant difference it is falling well short. We need complete transformation. The APS must be built and rebuilt around the principles of integrity and service. We are a long way from there, and there is a lot of work that is needed to get there. Frankly, this bill doesn't take us far enough towards these goals. It barely moves us in that direction at all.

To provide some context, as members would be aware, the Thodey review in 2019 laid out a reform vision for the Australian Public Service. In the past year, the minister has put a fair amount of work into consultation and engagement to test and develop some of Mr Thodey's recommendations. Today, some 3½ years after the report was finalised, we have the first piece of legislation resulting from that report. Unfortunately, what we don't have is a comprehensive response to the review either from the government of the day or from the new government. Right now, we don't have a clear idea about which recommendations are supported by the government and which are opposed. We don't have a roadmap for the implementation of the recommendations beyond what is contained in this bill, and we don't have certainty about where the APS will be in two, five or 10 years time.

In fact, all we really have is a high-level speech from the minister in October last year, where she set out a reform agenda with four components: integrity, client-centred service, an APS as a model employer and capability. These principles and components are all fine in principle, but a vision isn't enough. We need details about how and when the government is going to achieve this vision, what the priorities and trade-offs are and how this bill fits into the bigger picture. Without those details, it's hard to know whether this government is serious about APS reform, because this bill, frankly, doesn't go very far. It creates a new APS value, mandates the creation of a purpose statement and changes some sensible but minor governance changes. It is certainly not a reform bill.

For a government that spent many years in opposition waging a campaign against the diminishment of the public service and that has had a year in office to develop its agenda, I honestly expected more and so did the people of Wentworth. I expected a bold and ambitious piece of reform that would start to rebuild the APS's capability and restore trust and faith in this vital national institution.

The amendments I will move will not be agreed to in this place; the government has made that clear. My intention was not that they would become law but, rather, that they would shine a light on what we ought to see from this bill. Firstly, they would require the government to provide a formal written response to the Thodey review so that we know what they intend to implement and when. Secondly, they would require the government to adopt all of Thodey's themes as an APS value, instead of simply stewardship. The others include integrity, merit and openness—absolutely critical values for the Australian Public Service. Thirdly, they would expand the new rules around the APS census so that they would apply to the parliamentary departments as well as the public service departments. There is no obvious reason to me why an employee of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for instance, should enjoy more transparency over their agency's morale and performance than the Department of Parliamentary Services.

Finally, they would require the government to table a statement whenever it appoints an agency head, outlining the recruitment process. These are the most senior appointments that the government makes to the services. This would not prevent any captain's picks from being made, but at least it would make it transparent when a position was not advertised or if no other candidates were considered. This statement would be disallowable, meaning that this chamber or the other place could potentially veto the appointment of an agency head. This would be a new power for the parliament, and I think one that would be rarely, if ever, used. But the potential exercise of the power would change the incentives for the government making these appointments. I believe it would also change the incentives for senior public servants, discouraging them to become too aligned with one party or another.

Some people may think that this is the stuff of parliament and the stuff of the Canberra bubble—that people back in our constituencies don't care about this—and that is frankly wrong. It was just last week that I was talking to John, a key businessman in my constituency, and he was telling me about his deep disappointment in the politicisation of these important public appointments. He comes from business, and his desire for government is that they have the best people for the job—not the friends of the people in power. Again, what I'm putting forward here today would increase the transparency and accountability of our public services. I think that, from what the government actually campaigned on, these are values that the government said they care about. But, when it comes down to it and when amendments are presented to them, they're not willing to support this.

Each of these amendments would strengthen our public sector and also demonstrate that this bill could be far more than what it is. I will be supporting this bill, but I will also be urging the minister to go further and live up to the commitments the government has made with respect to the Australian Public Service and to integrity more generally.

The Albanese Labor government is restoring the integrity of the Australian Public Service. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, which we're debating today, is designed to ensure that the Australian Public Service is fit for purpose and that the APS can do its job of providing frank and fearless advice to government.

The reforms in this bill will strengthen the APS's core purpose and values, build the capability and expertise of the APS and support good governance, accountability and transparency. The majority of the amendments are recommendations from the 2019 independent review of the Australian Public Service, the Thodey review—recommendations that were ignored by those opposite in government for far too long. The Albanese government has listened to the voices of experts and the people these reforms affect. We've listened to David Thodey, and we thank him for his outstanding work in public sector reform in this country. We've listened to employees in the Australian Public Service and to representative groups, agencies and relevant groups, like the Community and Public Sector Union. We understand that a Public Service that is strong, that is capable, that is apolitical—where expertise and capability are fostered and appreciated and built on the values of integrity—is good for the country and good for Australians.

The APS is crucial for supporting Australians with the most pressing issues that they face. Every member of parliament knows this from their electorate offices. When constituents come to see us about visa matters, about Centrelink matters, about NDIS matters or about veterans' affairs matters, what they are looking for is for the Australian Public Service to serve them. In my own portfolio, our Public Service plays a crucial role in helping to keep Australians safe when they travel overseas. Public servants at the Australian Passport Office have processed a record-breaking 3.1 million passports in the past financial year. This was over one million more passports than our previous record, in 2018-19. The consular work that DFAT staff does when something goes wrong for Australians overseas is often heroic. For example, our public servants worked around the clock to successfully evacuate 364 Australians and their families from Sudan during the crisis earlier this year—a 24/7 consular crisis response in incredibly difficult circumstances, far from home, across multiple nations—keeping Australians safe when they were overseas. I'm so proud of those public servants and thank them for their commitment.

The APS works hard to support Australians, often at the times they need it the most. In order to do these things well, we need a Public Service that is truly independent, non-partisan and able to provide advice to the government of the day without fear or favour, a Public Service that is strong and independent and can give government ministers advice that they might not always like. But with the handing down of the robodebt royal commission's final report, we've now seen a compelling case study of what happens when our Public Service is diminished and degraded. Robodebt was a national scandal. It was an illegal program. It accused hundreds of thousands of Australians of being crooks, and it continued for four years, despite countless red flags, despite the legality and the operation of the program being raised repeatedly by Centrelink clients, by activists flagging these issues in social media campaigns, by journalists inquiring into the issue, by experts and lawyers within the government itself and by whistleblowers within their department.

Justice Murphy, presiding over the robodebt class action case, described the scheme as a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure in public administration'. That's why the Albanese Labor government initiated a robodebt royal commission, in order to uncover the depths of what had occurred in the scheme. Now that we've seen the royal commission's final report and have heard the evidence given to the royal commission, it's clear that this was the most shameful moment in Australia's Public Service history. Robodebt is a devastating example of what happens when the Public Service isn't empowered to give frank and fearless advice.

In the 46 days of public hearings we heard disturbing stories of people who relied on the safety net of government being hounded by that government, with no means of fighting back. The Australians who appeared before the royal commission to share their stories spoke frankly and fearlessly, and they bore witness to the failures of their government. We heard stories like that of pensioner Rosemary Gay, who was forced to make repayments on a wrongful $65,000 robodebt. While she was actively contesting it, the debt collectors took money from her pension to start repaying this debt, when it never existed. She said that the trauma would remain with her forever. We heard from Jennifer Miller, who went through the unimaginable devastating experience of losing her son to suicide after he was chased by the robodebt debt collectors.

We heard from Ricky Aik, who said that the time when he was hounded to repay debts he didn't owe was 'the worst period' of his life. Mr Aik said, 'It was hard to sleep, hard to concentrate on work,' because his own government, the government that he relied on, was hounding him wrongfully—illegally. We heard from Felicity Button, who was given a debt notice of $11,000, which left her unable to afford medication for her daughter. We heard the story of Sandra Bevan, who said she couldn't sleep at night and she dreaded the phone ringing whilst she was being pursued over a debt—a debt that never existed. Ms Bevan was meticulous. She said that, living pay cheque to pay cheque, she would 'often go without food' so her kids 'could have more food', and that she would over-report her income 'just in case'. When she was told about the debt, she knew that it couldn't be correct. Despite her attempts to correct the mistake, the debt collectors called and called, haranguing and attacking her. She said, 'The kids had already lost their dad, and I was trying my best to keep the house, a roof above our head.'

What we witnessed, ultimately, was a catastrophic failure of public administration, under a succession of ministers from the coalition government, who were responsible for this scheme over four years. I want to thank all of the Australians who gave evidence to the royal commission for sharing what were often extremely difficult and traumatic stories. The royal commission final report has demonstrated unequivocally that the Morrison government ministers oversaw an illegal scheme which cost lives and caused unthinkable trauma to so many Australians. As Commissioner Holmes said:

Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms.

But how did this all come about? The robodebt royal commission's final report makes it clear that the human cost, the economic cost, of robodebt is squarely due to the culture of public administration cultivated by those opposite under first the Turnbull and then the Morrison government. In the robodebt royal commission final report Commissioner Holmes said:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings.

It's quite clear robodebt was the inevitable result of those opposite's ideological approach to both Australia's welfare system and the Australian Public Service.

The former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, deliberately reshaped the Public Service to create a culture where public servants were unable to perform that core role of providing independent, fearless advice. He made his expectations for the Australian Public Service clear in a speech at the Institute of Public Administration in 2019. This speech was given before the comprehensive review of the Australian Public Service was completed, pre-empting, shamefully, the findings of the Thodey review, which the amendments to the Public Service Act that we are debating today draw upon. His message in this speech was clear. The message to public servants was to 'know your place'. He said in this speech, 'Ministers must not allow a policy vacuum to be created, expecting the Public Service to fill it and to do their job.' The robodebt ministers set the tone within the government and within the Public Service. They set the agenda and they owned the consequences. The member for Cook said in his speech:

It is about telling governments how things can be done—

that's the role of the Public Service—

not just the risks of doing them, or saying why they shouldn't be done. The public service is meant to be an enabler of government policy, not an obstacle.

The Public Service was certainly an enabler of the robodebt scheme. Unfortunately, no-one under the previous government was held accountable for this. In the member for Cook's speech to the Institute of Public Administration, he insisted that accountability to the parliament and to the public, for the government's policies, rested not with the Public Service but with ministers. He said:

Only those who have put their name on a ballot can truly understand the significance of that accountability. I know you might feel sometimes that you are absolutely right in what you are suggesting, but I can tell you when it is you that is facing the public and must look your constituents in the eye, it gives you a unique perspective.

Unfortunately, despite preaching this accountability, the member for Cook has consistently refused to be accountable for the catastrophic failures of the robodebt scheme. He set the culture, he set the policy direction, he won't take responsibility for the outcomes.

Indeed, he has passed the buck. He's blamed the public servants who were advising him and blamed his colleagues repeatedly, and he has had the chutzpah to claim it was distinguished royal commissioner Holmes that didn't understand the way government worked. This scandal, this failure of accountability and this failure of frank and fearless advice within government is why we need amendments to the Public Service Act in this bill. This is why we in the Albanese government have listened to the advice of experts like David Thodey. This is one of the reasons why we have introduced these amendments to strengthen the Australian Public Service's core purpose and values.

These amendments include adding a new Australian Public Service value of stewardship which all APS employees must uphold; requiring all agency heads to uphold and promote, in addition to the APS values and employment principles, the new APS purpose statement; and reaffirming the Australian Public Service's apolitical nature by clarifying and strengthening the act so that ministers cannot direct agency heads on staffing decisions. The amendments will build the capability and expertise of the APS, including by making regular, independent and transparent capability reviews a five-yearly requirement for each department of state, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. Capability reviews will assess organisational strengths and areas for development, with reports and action plans responding to findings required to be released publicly. It will also introduce amendments to support good governance, accountability and transparency, including by requiring publication of agencies' APS census results and an action plan that responds to results. This will foster a culture of transparency and accountability for continuous improvement within agencies. It will also require agency heads to implement measures to enable decisions to be made by employees at the lowest appropriate classification for those decisions. This will ensure that decision-making is not raised to a higher level than necessary, reducing unnecessary hierarchy and empowering APS employees.

These reforms are necessary to ensure that we have a robust, apolitical public service that can serve all Australians. They are necessary to ensure a disaster like robodebt never happens again. I would say to members of this House that this is a responsibility that we all must take incredibly seriously. It's no small thing to say that the worst failure of public administration in our history happened while we were in this parliament. We need to take responsibility for ensuring that this can never happen again. We need to learn the lessons from this scandal.

I think all members of parliament, but particularly ministers and those on the other side aspiring to be ministers, should read the findings of the robodebt royal commission final report closely. They should listen to the evidence of those Australians who were courageous enough to share their trauma with the royal commission. Those Australians put their trust in government at their time of need and were so badly failed. They were not only let down by the government that should be there to represent them and by the public servants that should be there to represent them but harassed and prosecuted as a result. This can never be allowed to happen again. We need change in the culture of both the Australian Public Service but also this place. The bill before the House is an important step in delivering this culture change.

I'm pleased to make a contribution on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, which aims to strengthen the core purpose and values of the Australian Public Service; build its capability and expertise; and support good governance, accountability and transparency. This is an important step forward in rebuilding the APS and restoring trust and faith in our government and its institutions.

This bill has been introduced because the sad reality is that in our country there's an all-time low of public trust in our Public Service. This hurts our democracy. This concerns me because our great country is built on democracy, and in order for us to continue to be the amazing democratic nation that we are, it is vital that the Australian people have trust in the APS. It's important that Australians can have trust in their government and its institutions. But, more to the point, Australians deserve a government that they can trust. In a world of uncertainties, trust and faith in government and the Public Service should be strong and stable, and this bill will help make sure people are able to feel a sense of trust again. This bill encompasses several of the key changes that align with the recommendations from the Thodey review, which was a comprehensive, independent review of the APS. These changes have also been informed by extensive consultation within and beyond the APS, including Australian Public Service employees, the CPSU, the USU, agency heads, experts and the general public.

Currently, there are five Australian Public Service values: to be committed to service, which anyone should be able to expect from a public servant; to be ethical, which is a rightful demand as a country with high moral standards; to be respectful; to be accountable; and to be impartial, which is necessary in order to maintain a strong public service. These values are important, and they are owed to the Australian people, but they don't quite go far enough. That's why this bill will introduce additional values which will help the Public Service to better serve those who it exists to serve. One of the proposed amendments is the addition of a new APS value of stewardship. Stewardship will require APS employees to uphold the public interest and build APS capability and institutional knowledge, ensuring that the long-term impacts of their actions are considered. This value, along with existing Australian Public Service values, will provide many things to help the Australian Public Service and help Australians reflect on their expectations of what the Australian community is.

In order for Australians to be able to trust the Public Service, they need to be able to see what it does for them. It is hard to trust something that sometimes cannot be seen and is something that you don't always understand. To further strengthen the APS core purpose and values, the bill introduces a requirement for the development of the APS purpose statement. This statement, overseen by the Secretaries Board and reviewed every five years, will create a unified vision for the APS and guide its actions in serving the nation. Agency heads will be required to uphold and promote this purpose statement in addition to the Australian Public Service values and employment principles. This will help in one way to allow the public to get knowledge of public servants and understand what they do and why they do it. It will clearly lay out the values, visions, and purpose of the APS, which is an innovation for Australians to trust them and have faith in them again.

Another important change in the bill clarifies and strengthens provisions to ensure that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. This reaffirms the apolitical nature of the APS and protects its integrity. By shifting the language from passive to active voice, the bill emphasises that the duty is on the ministers not to intervene in the APS employment matters. Simply stating that an agency head is not subject to direction by any minister has been proven not to be strong enough to prevent this from happening. We are making it absolutely clear that a minister must not direct an agency head. It is the responsibility of the minister to not direct. We knew this and this bill strongly reinforces this and leaves no room for loopholes or alternate interpretations of section 19 of this act. This creates crystal-clear limits on what is appropriate for ministers to be involved in regarding APS employment matters and supports the integrity of the Public Service. This bill aims to empower APS employees and improve decision-making processes. It requires agency heads to implement measures that enable decision-making to be undertaken at the lowest appropriate classification, reducing unnecessary hierarchy and fostering a work environment that empowers staff. We should aspire to be a workplace which empowers staff, and so too should the rest of the Public Service. But the truth is that this has not been the culture in the past. We know this because the Thodey review noted a growing tendency for decisions involving risk to be escalated to the top of the hierarchy. This should not be the case if it does not need to be. There are amazing and capable individuals in our Public Service system who should be trusted to deal with these matters. It is how they grow and become empowered in their workplaces. This is why it is important to make sure decision-making is not raised to a higher level than necessary.

This bill will help to do this by improving decision-making processes and reducing duplication of work. This creates a stronger, more fair Public Service with a culture which helps employees to grow and thrive. This is the kind of culture any kind of business would aspire to. I know from my time in management roles that it is the kind of culture that we all value—and I certainly valued it. It creates success and progress. It makes sense that our Public Service should aspire to a culture of success. The Thodey review revealed that there are concerns that the capability of the APS has been worn away over time. As a country we should always look to move forward. We should always aspire to improve. This should also be the case with our Public Service. If the capability of our Public Service is going backwards, how can we as a nation move forward? Something needs to be done. This bill will help our Public Service to thrive.

In line with the Thodey review's recommendations, the bill makes regular five-yearly capability reviews a requirement for each department, Services Australia, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Public Service Commission. These reviews will assess organisational strengths and areas for development, with reports and action plans responding to the findings required to be publicly released. These capability reviews have an aim of facilitating discussions around the agencies' desired future state, highlighting organisational capability gaps and identifying opportunities to address them. By investing in the long-term capability of the Australian Public Service, we ensure that it remains future-fit and continuously improves to meet the standards of the government and the Australian community.

Transparency and accountability are crucial in a modern Public Service. In the modern world questions arise quickly when the Public Service isn't transparent. This doubt can reduce trust. The public must have an insight into the Public Service to be able to see what they do and to also hold them accountable. Transparency and accountability create faith and trust, which is why this bill requires the publication of agencies' APS employee census results. This will foster a culture of transparency and continuous improvement within agencies. Furthermore, the bill requires the establishment of at least one long-term insights briefing each year. These briefings, developed through a process of public consultation, will explore medium-term and long-term trends, risks and opportunities facing Australia, provide impartial analysis and inform government's decision-making process. This is genuine consultation with the public on issues affecting Australia and its society. This is just common sense. If you want to truly understand the issues impacting Australians, you should speak to those being impacted, and that is what this amendment will do.

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will be granted leave if they were interrupted.

The Southern Moreton Bay Islands in my electorate are home to over 8,000 people. As the crow flies, these communities are close to Brisbane, but, in terms of infrastructure, remoteness and economic challenges, they resemble many of Australia's regional communities. In 2017, community-led efforts resulted in the former coalition government enabling these islands to be eligible for funding through the Building Better Regions Fund. Sadly, Labor's new eligibility conditions for the Growing Regions Program have excluded the Southern Moreton Bay Islands and North Stradbroke Island projects.

I recently joined with 24 local community groups to write a joint appeal to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government voicing our community's concerns. In a response which dismissed our concerns, the minister identified the wrong set of islands as the Southern Moreton Bay Islands. The minister's response claimed that projects on the islands would be eligible for regional funding. However, her office later backtracked when it was pointed out they had mistaken the uninhabited Cobby Cobby, Mosquito, Eden and Crusoe islands on the Gold Coast for the Southern Moreton Bay Islands. I even provided the minister's office with a map of the islands, but this didn't seem to help orientate them. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious. The residents of SMBI are unimpressed, as am I, that the federal infrastructure minister's office and department do not know where or what they are. I'll keep up the pressure to ensure our islands receive their fair share of funding.

I'm trying to be brave, but I feel very sad. Our much-loved pioneer Margaret Cockman OAM, freeman of the cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup, sadly passed away last week aged 92. Margaret was a close friend, confidante and mentor, always with an opinion and not shy about voicing it. She was a caring, vibrant and beautiful lady who was absolutely fearless and formidable when standing up for everything that was important to her, which was most things. Margaret lived her entire life in the Wanneroo area and was the keeper of much of our history. Close friends recall working through 23 large archive boxes with information dating back before 1927, when she was born. Her collection now resides with the Wanneroo Regional Museum and will play a very important role in helping our future generations to understand the history of our region.

Margaret's strong, proud and pioneering spirit was inspirational, as was her fierce protection for all things Wanneroo. Margaret shared her wisdom, and we regularly held hands as we shared our breast cancer journeys and supported each other. She was a well-known ambassador for the Cancer Council's Joondalup and Wanneroo relay for life. Margaret's love for her family, friends and community was clear for all to see. I send my condolences to her sister, Maude; nieces, Michelle and Debbie; and all the family. She will be greatly missed by us all and will continue to hold a very special place in the hearts of the Pearce community.

Yesterday was pollie Sunday, as it's known colloquially amongst those of us who travel a lot. Arrive at Canberra Airport—check. Down the escalator—check. Temperature falling—check. Press gallery on the floor—check. I wandered past that erstwhile reporter Nicole Hegarty, formerly from ABC Wide Bay. An interview for the member for Hinkler? No. 'That's interesting.' Member for Bonner? No interview. Member for Flynn? No interview. Member for Capricornia? No interview. Member for Wright? No interview. Member for Dawson? No interview. Who wouldn't want to interview the member for Dawson?

While waiting for luggage, I continued to watch closely, and no interviews from our ABC. I thought I'd better check to see what was going on. Ms Hegarty informs me that, in a relatively recent change at the Canberra Airport, they must have one hour's notice from anyone that intends to go there to do media, interviews and show up with cameras. This is not a new event. People have been flying into Canberra airport for sittings for quite some time, and we expect that there will be someone from the gallery there to hold the government and the opposition to account and talk about their policies.

I say to Canberra Airport: don't forget what's in the Australian Citizenship booklet on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. People can criticise the government. I encourage it! Protest peacefully against government decisions. The idea that you will stop the media because you simply don't respond to their inquiries is outrageous. If you're worried about safety, set up something. This is something that happens every Sunday. It's an important part of our democracy and it should be continued.

The decision by Australia Post to close the Modbury post office beggars belief. Located in the Tea Tree Plaza Shopping Centre and within the dominant regional precinct in Adelaide's north-east where, every day, thousands of people pass through, the post office is also adjacent to Modbury Hospital, the O-Bahn transport interchange, the City of Tea Tree Gully Council offices and countless community, commercial and public services. If the post office is closed, Tea Tree Plaza will become a major regional centre without a post office.

The post office provides a range of services, including general postal services, bill paying, banking, passports, money transfers et cetera. Australia Post claims the post office is making a loss and there are other post offices in the region. Those other post offices are not easily accessible by everyone. Australia Post was corporatised in 1989, but it is still expected to provide a public service. It is absurd that a regional centre have no post office.

I call on Australia Post to consider all options, including franchising out the service or reducing its current floor area, and to reverse its decision to close the Modbury Post Office. I also ask the Minister for Communications and the Minister for Finance to consider any options available to them to ensure the Modbury post office remains open.

I want to use this time to share a story from a constituent of mine, McKeeley:

We moved into our current Wilston unit in October 2021. An old but large 2-bedroom apartment, with minimal features (no fans, air con or dishwasher). Last week, we received a lease renewal—a 26% increase from $360 to $455 per week. This lease renewal was also for a 6-month period (rather than the 12-month leases we'd signed for this property prior).

We have made no major repair requests or had any issues with inspections. We've never missed a rent payment.

We offered an 11 % increase. The real estate simply said 'the price is non-negotiable'. Now we have to move out.

In our last rental, we requested that our oven be repaired to a working standard. The landlord's response? A Notice to Leave along with the comment "What do you need an oven for? Don't you young people just eat Maccas?"

My partner and I are TRYING to be contributors to society but there is no hope of ever saving for a house deposit. We are stuck in a system that has no regard for tenants.

I am typing through tears in my eyes.

Australia's housing system is destroying people, and all this government has is cheap political stunts and half-baked policies that don't come close to addressing the scale of this crisis. Unlimited rent increases need to be made illegal.

I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about an event that I was delighted to have been a part of on 29 June at RAAF Edinburgh, which is located in my electorate of Spence. The event marked a further five-year extension to the partnership between Defence and Questacon to empower and support teachers to bring STEM into their classrooms in a manner that uses fun, challenging and engaging ways. It was great to hear from local teacher Chloe Heffernan about the benefits of bringing STEM into her classroom and what it can bring to classrooms throughout Australia.

I'd like to thank the Assistant Minister for Defence for his video message on the day; he was unable to attend in person. I know that the assistant minister would like to have attended if he could have, as I know he very much appreciates the importance of building STEM talent pools in Australia, particularly full of bright young minds who one day might find themselves in careers in defence, defence adjacent or a number of other rewarding fields that are going to be critically important to Australia in the years to come. I'm sure he would also have enjoyed having a go or two on the VR flight simulator. I'm at least reliably informed that I make for a very decent virtual helicopter pilot. I'd like to thank Senator Fawcett for attending this event. It is important to have a bipartisan presence at events involving not just defence but also STEM education. Lastly, I'd like to thank Questacon director Jo White, Major General Wade Stothart and Air Commodore Adrian Maso AM for making the day a huge success.

Indi is one of the food bowls of our nation, and today I want to acknowledge two of the community initiatives in Indi that promote sustainable healthy food. Sustainable King Valley is a small but active food hub operating out of the local and loved Cheshunt hall. The food hub aims to reduce food miles and packaging by providing access to quality bulk goods and cleaning products. It also connects people with excess produce to share that produce with other people. Well done to Kate Walsh and Jess Young and their committed team of volunteers who lead this fabulous program.

Sustainable King Valley recently connected with Josh Collins and the team from the social enterprise cooperative Acres and Acres in the Upper Murray. Acres and Acres's mission is to support a network of growers across the region to build resilience through sustainable farming practices and enable communities to grow their own food.

Recently, I met with Dr Sandro Demaio, CEO of VicHealth. He was passionate about VicHealth's investment in Acres and Acres as part of their Future Healthy initiative. VicHealth have funded two full-time traineeships for young people to help educate and mobilise their communities and transform our local food systems in the Upper Murray.

Sustainable food production is vital for all our futures. I am proud that community-driven initiatives such as these are enabling positive and sustainable food future in Indi.

In the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2011, Australia and a raft of nations passed a resolution designating 30 July as the International Day of Friendship. This resolution extended an invitation to all member states and organisations to recognise the power, importance and relevance of friendship, highlighting the indisputable role friendship plays in bringing together people around the world. The resolution has served as a reminder that we cannot have peace and prosperity among nations without having leaders and citizens who are not willing to be friends. We know friendship inspires peace, and, with global peace, we can bridge divides and build a better future for all.

Across the world, governments, organisations and community groups will be celebrating this day through coordinated events and activities. Parliament will not miss out as later today I will be co-hosting an international friendship day event with the Paraguayan embassy. We'll be joined by chairs and vice chairs of parliamentary country groups and heads of missions from across Canberra.

The broad enthusiasm from parliamentarians, embassies and high commissions is a great example of how our international community can come together to celebrate the human spirit through friendship. Through friendship, we can contribute to the shifts that need to happen for the greater good. Happy international friendship day to all.

Students from Durack who get to go on 'the Canberra trip' often say it's a trip of a lifetime. As their local member, I'm always very excited to meet up with the students to hear about their travels and to talk about what matters to them.

Twenty-one students from Northampton District High School recently experienced 'the Canberra trip', led by Kyra, Kristine and Simon. Unfortunately, parliament was not sitting then and I missed them, so last week I paid the students a visit at their school. We talked about seeing snow for the first time and how the town of Northampton needs a swimming pool. The students were respectful, engaged and very inquisitive. I received many insightful answers to the question: What would you do if you were PM for the day? One idea was to arrange for Foodbank to travel regularly from Geraldton to Northampton to help those who are struggling to put food on the table. I am so proud of these young people who clearly have an understanding of the needs in their very diverse regional community.

This morning I had the pleasure of meeting up with nine Port Hedland and Carnarvon school-of-the-air students, led by Penny, Joel, Taryn, Peter, Shanon and Donna. These students live in the remotest parts of WA. Although it was day 1 of their trip, the students were all very well mannered and curious and were a credit to their families. When asked what they would do if they were PM, not surprisingly, issues raised related to telecommunications, the quality of roads and the cost fuel. It was such a joy to meet with those young people today.

Merrill J Fernando was many things, and he was a visionary tea maker who made single-origin Ceylon tea a household name in the world. Merrill was a committed environmentalist, philanthropist, and iconic personality whose catchphrase 'do try it' became popular in Australia. This extraordinary person breathed his last breath at the age of 93 less than a fortnight ago in Colombo after having dedicated most of his life to tea, an essential beverage in every corner of the world.

When Merrill retired, the tea industry was vastly different from when he began his career. He was among the first Sri Lankans to be trained as a tea taster, a profession closely guarded by the previous colonial administration. In London, he noticed that the industry was exploitative, with Sri Lankan producers receiving a tiny fraction of the profits, whilst middlemen—mainly a handful of large corporations—benefitted excessively. After 30 years in the business, Dilmah, the first producer owned tea brand, was founded—and the rest is history. He also ensured that a minimum of 15 per cent of Dilmah's profits went to charitable and environmental causes. I extend my condolences to his family and to the employees of Dilmah. I thank the House.

I rise to thank Senator Bridget McKenzie, who came to my electorate during the break to participate in a roundtable that I held with two of my local governments, the Norwood Payneham and St Peters Council and Burnside Council. The mayors and elected members of both those councils were invited to join us and talk with her about the important task of getting trucks off Portrush Road.

When we were in government, we went ahead with what we assumed the now government would honour, which was the Truro bypass project. It was a very important first step to getting heavy freight diverted around to the back of the Adelaide Hills so that it wouldn't come rumbling down the freeway at great risk to traffic and pedestrians and, frankly, great economic inefficiency compared to the alternative route.

We announced investments in the Truro bypass, but, regrettably, that project is now on hold under this 90-day review to reconsider whether that vital project will go ahead and be invested in. I will be fighting to secure funding for not only that—no matter what happens with this 90-day review decision—but also the Adelaide freight bypass corridor. That is a vital road safety and economic efficiency measure for my electorate and for the people of Adelaide. I hope the government does not remove funding for that project in this review process.

Last week, Singapore hanged Mohd Aziz bin Hussain and Saridewi Binte Djamani. They have notified that they will carry out another execution of a Singapore Malay man this Wednesday, in two days time. Today I call for this nation's good friend Singapore to follow in the footsteps of Malaysia and cease barbaric executions of its citizens immediately. If this execution proceeds on Wednesday, it will be the 16th execution in Singapore since March last year—that is, effectively, one person killed every month. Many of these executions, including the three I've mentioned, were for minor drug offences.

In the case of Saridewi Binte Djamani, she was the first woman to be executed in almost 30 years. Saridewi was found in possession of just 30 grams of heroin. She was convicted in 2018 under Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act for possession for the purposes of trafficking. Advocates for Saridewi said that she was suffering from severe drug withdrawal when she was being interrogated by police. Statements were made under duress and should not have been admissible in court. Singapore is a modern rules based country, so where was Saridewi's lawyer during her interview? Bizarrely, in Singapore, you aren't allowed to be legally represented upon arrest or during interrogation by police. The basic right of legal representation is denied in modern Singapore. Many of these people caught in this unfair and brutal system come from minorities who can't even speak the language and have drug dependency issues.

I rise on a matter that deeply troubles me, the decision by Justice Charlesworth two weeks ago in the Federal Court to disallow the ministerial selection by my good friend Keith Pitt of the Kimba site for the national radioactive waste management facility.

After treading this pathway for seven years, I'm disturbed by what it says to my community, but I'm even more concerned by what it says about the value of freehold title in Australia today. Justice Charlesworth has thrown out the High Court decision, saying that native title has been extinguished by the act of freehold title and that people with freehold title have to go back and consult with the traditional owners if they wish to make any changes to their land. They might be putting up a shed on a suburban block. The minister must immediately repeal this decision because it is putting doubt in the mind of all Australians who own land and property.

The next problem that we have—and I'll be having more to say this week on this issue in this place—is we now have an authority called ANSTO which is going to run out of space for low-level wage in 2028, and ARPANSA said that condition cannot be extended. That judge has put the producer of medical isotopes— (Time expired)

Men's shed have been around in our communities for 30 years. They are an Australian first, started as a way to improve men's health and wellbeing. They have extended to all sorts of activities. Their workshops include craft, metal, woodworking, cooking and more. Perhaps the most valuable contribution is that they are a common space for men and women to come together and bond over shared interests. The impact on mental health of more than 1,200 sheds across the country has been extensively documented. We have even exported them abroad, and over 2,000 sheds operate in countries like the UK, Ireland, New Zealand and Greece.

In our electorate of Tangney, the Melville shed provides many opportunities for training and leisure for our local communities. I recently visited the facility to celebrate their one-year anniversary, talk to the members of our community and learn about the impact these men's sheds have on their lives. I'm proud of the work they do for our local communities, and I'm hoping we can work together to support this amazing space.

There is no end in sight to Labor's energy price spiral. The latest data reveals the costs of generating electricity soared by a further 31 per cent between April and June. Meanwhile, Labor in Victoria is ripping away gas supply. The Labor government's decision to ban gas connections in Victoria is just the latest example of scandalous mismanagement from an extreme-left-wing government. We know what happens when you restrict supply and choice—prices go up. And with households being forced to have more reliance on electricity, which Labor just keeps making more expensive, households will feel the financial hit even further. When a similar decision was taken by an ACT Labor government, gas prices spiked for households and small businesses. We know that new research has found one in 10 people are unable to pay their power bills under Labor, yet Labor is intent on making their lives even harder. The coalition, in contrast, believes in consumer choice, and opposes this decision to rip away people's rights to make their own decisions, to have gas and to do what is best for them. The truth is there is no more rotten government in Australia than Victorian Labor, fully supported by the Albanese government—a party that just cancelled the Commonwealth Games because it has run the state's finances into the ground.

I recently had the privilege to visit Karinya House, a really important organisation here in Canberra that supports women who are pregnant or have newborns who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. They provide a home and a support network for women and their children at this critical point in their lives. It was great to meet with Lavinia Tyrrel, CEO of Karinya House, and her team to hear about the incredibly valuable work that they do to support women and their children in Canberra. The staff and volunteers at Karinya House work to provide not only immediate assistance but also the tools necessary for women to build a brighter future for themselves and their families. Their impact extends well beyond the walls of their organisation. They recognise that by assisting women and families in times of crisis we build a stronger society. With the rising cost of living, the housing and rental crisis, and the high incidence of family and domestic violence, the demand for Karinya's services remains high in Canberra and the surrounding region.

Australian women are front and centre of the Albanese government's priorities, and this is reflected in our National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children and the $1.7 billion commitment to improving women's safety initiatives to support our ambition of a country free from gender based violence. I want to thank Lavinia and her team for sharing their ideas on how we can support women and the work that they do each and every day to support these families at a really difficult point in their lives and to give them that hope and community around them.

I rise today to commemorate a significant milestone in one of the small communities in my electorate, the 30th anniversary of the Burrowa House aged-care facility in Boorowa. For three decades, Burrowa House has served the local community, providing quality care and accommodation for elderly citizens. Recently, I had the privilege of joining the community to celebrate this milestone as well their expansion thanks to a $765,000 grant under the former coalition government. Burrowa House can now provide eight additional aged-care places, taking the number of places from 12 to 20. This is a significant stride forward in meeting the growing needs of the ageing population around Boorowa.

Burrowa House is not only a valuable community asset for its elderly residents but also a big employer, driving the local economy with well over 30 permanent and casual staff. Burrowa House is a facility that the whole community can be immensely proud of, especially because much of its funding over the years has stemmed directly from the local community, a testament to their unwavering support and dedication to this remarkable establishment.

I want to congratulate the Burrowa House board members, both past and present, and the community for their leadership, hard work and continued support. We are concerned, however, about the increasing red tape and regulatory burdens facing aged-care facilities like Burrowa House under this government. We want to ensure that seniors, especially in regional communities, continue to receive the very best care in their local area.

Congratulations to the new WA state member for Rockingham, Magenta Marshall, who won the seat with an excellent 65.2 per cent two-party preferred margin on Saturday. Magenta Marshall is a Rockingham local born and raised, her first job being at the Rockingham City Football Club. The new member knows she has big shoes to fill after the retirement of Premier Mark McGowan, the most popular premier in Australia's history, and she has approached the task with humility, seriousness and vigour, knocking on thousands of doors over the short six-week campaign. Magenta Marshall is competent and driven and exemplifies Labor values. I am grateful for her expertise in guiding my own campaign. She will be a highly capable and relentless advocate for the people of Rockingham. She is the first woman to represent Rockingham, and her win brings the WA Legislative Assembly to virtual gender parity, with 29 of the 59 seats now held by women. She's also the youngest current member of the WA parliament, underscoring the WA Labor Party's commitment to generational change.

It was another bad result for the moribund WA Liberal Party, who, just like the federal coalition, still need to learn that rebuilding support requires good policy formulation and hard work, not just being consistently negative. I look forward to working closely with Magenta Marshall, Premier Roger Cook and the rest of the Labor team in WA to continue delivering good policy outcomes for Western Australians.

On 13 July, this nation lost a larger-than-life character—Ewen Jones, the former member for Herbert. But it's his bravery and courage and the love that was shown to him during the death sentence he had with cancer that I'd like to mention today—the bravery and courage he showed going down the aisle to his daughter's wedding, being pushed by Andrew and holding Abbie's hand, blind in both eyes but with a huge smile on his face. He sat there while his daughter Emma gave the speech that he had hoped to give during that wedding, smiling and nodding in appreciation at the great job that she did. There was the love and the banter between him and Linda as they faced those final couple of weeks. They knew that the end was coming, but their love was shining and making that end far better than it could have been. His mother, Hilary, was heartbroken. She was not able to attend the funeral, but she knew that he'd been loved right to the end. His brothers, Stewart and Graeme, also were there by his side. It was love that all of us could only hope for as you face a death sentence like cancer, and I am positive that that love will ensure he rests in peace.

on indulgence—Just briefly on behalf of the government we associate ourselves with the fine words of the member for Wannon. Ewen Jones was someone who was known to those of us who served with him as someone of good spirit, someone absolutely dedicated to his electorate and someone who was a good bloke and was good fun to be around. He's someone who had a great deal of friends across this parliament, and on behalf of the government and the Australian Labor Party I express my condolences to his family and friends and to his political party.

In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members statements has concluded.

I have received a return to the writ which I issued on 12 June 2023 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Fadden, in the state of Queensland, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Honourable Stuart Roland Robert. By the endorsement on the writ, it is certified that Cameron Caldwell has been elected.

Mr Cameron Caldwell made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.

On behalf of the House, I welcome the new member for Fadden.

I inform the House of the death on 13 July 2023 of Ewen Thomas Jones, a member of this House for the division of Herbert from 2010 to 2016. As a mark of respect to the memory of Ewen Jones, I invite all present to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the House.

I declare that the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Simon Findlay Crean be referred to the Federation Chamber.

I inform the House that the Attorney-General will be absent from question time, at least for today, and the Minister for Communications will answer questions on his behalf.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the efforts being undertaken following the tragedy of the MRH-90 Australian Army helicopter crash off Central Queensland last Friday?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and for the Leader of the Opposition—but I think every member of this chamber—joining with us today on what has been a very difficult weekend for our nation.

As the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force made clear, earlier today, our worst fears have been confirmed. I know that every member of this House, along with every Australian, is thinking of the families of Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs, four men who made the brave and selfless choice to serve our country, to dedicate their lives to keeping us safe. They were soldiers and they were sons, husbands, brothers, fathers and friends. Today our deepest sympathies are with the people who loved them and the people that they loved. We will have, of course, a formal condolence motion at an appropriate time for them.

We are also thinking of all those who served alongside these four men who remain missing, the members of the 6th Aviation Regiment based at Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney and, indeed, all of their brothers and sisters in uniform, many of whom are continuing to assist in the search and recovery effort. I know the House will want to join me in acknowledging the vital support that Canada and the United States of America are providing to the efforts of the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force as well as the civilian authorities led by the Queensland Police Service and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Our nation offers them all the strength that we can while their difficult work goes on.

It is important for us to recognise that this will be a very hard time for many serving members and their families as well as veterans, and I encourage anyone who feels in need of support to seek it. Families can call Defence Member and Family Support on 1800624608. Serving men and women, veterans and families can contact Open Arms on 1800011046.

This terrible incident has provided a stark reminder that there are no safe or easy days for those who serve in our country's name or, indeed, for their families, for they also serve. The Australians we mourn today were taking part in Exercise Talisman Sabre, bringing together 13 nations and more than 30,000 personnel, an unprecedented display of strategic cooperation and coordination, driven by a common determination to preserve peace and security in the Indo-Pacific but also the wider world. This was the noble ideal that these four Australians volunteered to serve, uphold and defend.

All Australians owe a debt to the brave men and women who wear our uniform, citizens who risk their lives in order to protect our way of life. On behalf of our nation, we offer our sympathies and condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of those who Australia has lost. We mourn them. We will remember them. Lest we forget.

On indulgence—I want to thank the Prime Minister for the update to the House and, as the Prime Minister points out, there will be a more formal opportunity for remarks in relation to the condolence motion. But it is important that the country hears a very unified message from the government and from the opposition on dark days for our country.

I want to say thank you to the Defence minister and to the Defence officials who briefed us earlier today in relation to this tragedy. The work, as the Prime Minister points out, of the search and rescue effort of those diggers who were onboard the MRH-90 that followed this helicopter that abruptly, violently, hit the water, the tragedy that they experienced at that time and what they will be going through now, is something that we acknowledge as a parliament. Our country comes together during these dark hours to make sure that we can provide support to those in need of it. The Australian Defence Force today, particularly those who are serving in the 6th Aviation Regiment, are worthy of our support, and they should know that this parliament will come together to provide support in this next phase.

To the families of Danniel Lyon, of Max Nugent, of Joseph Laycock and of Alexander Naggs, our thoughts and prayers are with them and with the diggers.

I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Herbert, who I know has been in contact with a number of his former colleagues and has served at one point with Corporal Naggs. Many people will have similar stories.

It is a tragic day for our nation, and I know we will continue to work to provide the recovery effort so that the answers can be provided to the loved ones and to their colleagues. We come together today on an incredibly sad occasion, a tragic occasion for our nation. We stand as one in support of those men and women who bravely wear the uniform of the Australian Defence Force.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the government promised Australians before the election that no family will be worse off and that almost all families will be better off. Is the Prime Minister aware that Australians are getting less for every dollar they spend at the supermarket, that power prices continue to surge, that Australians are you working more hours and getting less for it and, in the month of May, a record 40 per cent of mortgage holders struggled to pay their mortgage. Will this Prime Minister admit that Australian families and small businesses are worse off now than when his government was elected?

We are very conscious of the fact that the global economy has softened due to supply chain issues relating to the post pandemic recovery and the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We are also very conscious of the fact of what we inherited—the largest deficit since the Second World War and a trillion dollars of debt with little to show for it; sluggish economic growth; productivity sliding backwards; declining business investment; widespread skill shortages, which were holding businesses back; a wages policy that was deliberately about keeping wages low; and more Australians than ever in insecure jobs. We are aware of that.

We are also aware that the largest increase in inflation this century, in the March 2022 quarter, was of 2.1 per cent. If you have 2.1 per cent inflation, then that does have an impact. What also has an impact is if that is the context in which you are bringing down a budget—as those opposite did in March 2022. At a time when inflation is the highest of any quarter this century, what they chose to do was to pour petrol on that fire. What they chose to do was try and buy their way through an election with a massive stimulus, which of course all ended once people had voted.

Last week we had the figure of a 0.8 per cent CPI increase in the June quarter. We would like to see that moderate further, but we acknowledge the fact that that is a moderation compared with where it has been and certainly compared with the 2.1 per cent that we inherited. But we do have a plan to combat inflation. It is about turning the $78 billion deficit into the first budget surplus in 15 years—that is what we have done—and banking that. Secondly, it's about providing cost-of-living help that supports household budgets without adding to inflation: cheaper child care, cheaper medicine, energy bill relief, affordable and social housing, strengthening the social safety net—all measures that those opposite opposed. And, thirdly, investing in supply chain challenges, including the National Reconstruction Fund, skills and free TAFE, infrastructure investment— (Time expired)

My question is to the Treasurer. What did the latest Consumer Price Index figures reveal, and how is the Albanese Labor government responding to the inflation challenge in our community?

Thank you to the member for Macquarie. I would also like to acknowledge Carole Crean for her loss, and the country's loss, with the passing of Simon.

We understand Australian households and small businesses are feeling the pressure of higher prices, higher interest rates and global economic uncertainty. Inflation is still the main challenge in our economy, and that means that rolling out help with the cost of living is the major focus of our government. It's a key part of our three-point plan to get on top of this inflation challenge that we are confronting. First was taking the edge off these cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation. Second was having a responsible approach to the budget and a bigger surplus at a time when the inflation challenge was most acute. Third was investing in the supply chain challenges that have been a big part of the inflation that we've seen so far.

Last week, as the Prime Minister said, we did get the quarterly inflation numbers, which showed that price pressures in our economy are continuing to moderate. As the PM said, on a quarterly basis we saw inflation up 0.8 per cent. That's less than half the quarterly peak that was posted in the March quarter 2022, under those opposite, before the election. That's just the fact. It's pleasing that inflation is easing in our economy, and, while we'd prefer it moderate more quickly, it is the case that it is moderating faster than many economists expected.

The No. 1 priority of this government, as I said, is getting on top of the inflation challenge and rolling out cost-of-living relief for Australians doing it tough. That assistance is rolling out right now, and the benefits will continue to flow over the coming weeks and months. If you think about it, just this month we've eased the cost of early childhood education for 1.2 million families. We've begun rolling out energy price relief, with up to $500 in bill relief for more than five million households and up to $650 for one million small businesses, and we've got a new tax incentive for up to 3.8 million small businesses to help them save on their energy bills. In September, we'll make medicines even cheaper by allowing people to buy two months worth of supply for the price of a single prescription. As the Minister for Social Services was talking about yesterday, we've got really important increases to working age payments, JobSeeker and youth allowance, and also the biggest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance for 30 years if the safety net bill passes in this sitting.

Inflation, both here and around the world, is moderating in welcome ways. We're seeing welcome progress, but it will be higher than we'd like for longer than we would like. But our responsible cost-of-living policies are helping Australians through these difficult times as we stare down this inflation challenge, we clean up the mess left behind by those opposite and we lay the foundations for a stronger future together.

My question is to the Treasurer. New Roy Morgan research has found that, in the three months to June this year, 1.43 million Australians were at risk of mortgage stress, so why does the government's so-called wellbeing framework measure mortgage stress using data that ends in 2020? Why is this Treasurer so out of date and out of touch?

Order! The Member for Deakin and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy will cease interjecting.

Those opposite may not care about the wellbeing of our people and our communities, but we do. As the wellbeing framework that I released, Australia's first ever national wellbeing framework, acknowledged in the report—if the member had actually taken the time to read it—people are under the pump. One of the reasons why people are under additional pressure is that interest rates started going up before the election and continued after the election, for all of the reasons that intelligent people in this parliament are aware of. So he can ask all the questions he likes. It takes quite a bit of effort to get him out of his hole and ask a question. I think he's asked one question about the budget in the months since the budget was handed down, so I am happy to take his questions.

When it comes to the cost of living more broadly, he asked me about the pressure on Australian families from higher interest rates and inflation, which peaked in quarterly terms on their watch, and the global economic uncertainty that we are seeing. One of the reasons why this is the least coherent, least convincing and least credible opposition on the economy in living memory is that it took them 80 days to tell us how much their budget reply cost. Phileas Fogg got around the world in 80 days. It took 80 days for those opposite to tell us how much their policies would cost.

An honourable member interjecting—

The Treasurer will pause for a moment. Whoever is interjecting can cease that immediately, and I'll hear from the member for Hume on a point of order.

On relevance: the question was very specific. It asked why the wellbeing framework was so out of date and out of touch.

I call the Treasurer, in continuation.

As I acknowledged at the start of the question, the wellbeing framework itself says that Australians are under pressure. One of the sources of that pressure is higher interest rates. We made that clear. One of the reasons that we are so serious about this wellbeing framework is that we want to make sure that the data that we rely on to make good decisions in our economy is as good as it can be. We will continue to refine the wellbeing framework in ways that I said we would on the day that it was released.

I'll tell you what won't be happening. We won't be taking lectures about the economy from that party, where we have the Leader of the Opposition saying we should be spending more on cost-of-living help. The shadow Treasurer says we should be spending less on cost-of-living help. Then we've got the shadow finance minister, who said that she read one of my speeches and said I was heading in the right direction. They've got three different spokespeople and three very different positions. Their time would be much better spent getting some coherence and some credibility in their approach to the economy. It has been entirely missing.

We have spent a big chunk of our first year in office trying to clean up the mess that they left of the economy and the budget. Look at the scoreboard: you've got unemployment at 3½ per cent; you've got the first surplus in 15 years; we're rolling out cost-of-living help; and inflation is moderating from the quarterly peak that we saw under the incompetence that we look at now opposite.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the parliament last met, what steps has the Albanese Labor government taken to ease the pressure on families, and what is standing in the way of providing relief to vulnerable Australians?

I thank the member for Corangamite for her question, and I acknowledge the work that she does, representing the great people of regional Victoria. We are working as a government for Australia every day. Working for Australia is the theme of what we are doing each and every day going forward, working to take pressure off people whilst not putting pressure on inflation.

Since the last sitting of parliament, 80 of our urgent care clinics have opened—I've opened two of them—meaning more people can get the care they need, when they need it, for free. You've got the Medicare bulk-billing incentive being tripled. You've had changes to paid parental leave, which has helped 20,000 families, and our cheaper childcare plan is making a difference for 1.2 million families. The CommBank's economic insights noted this: 'The changes to the childcare subsidy are expected to see a 32 per cent decline in out-of-pocket expenses for households.'

It's worth noting that cheaper childcare for families will also, in the medium term, put downward pressure on inflation pressures in the economy.

Opposition members interjecting—

The interjections show you how much they disagree with cheaper child care. We're also getting wages moving. Since 1 July, 2.7 million workers on awards have received a 5.75 per cent pay increase, the largest increase since 2009, and 250,000 aged-care workers have got a 15 per cent pay rise. Many a nurse on an award wage can earn an extra $10,000 a year.

The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.

This week the Senate will take up the strengthening the safety net bill. This can provide meaningful relief for vulnerable Australians, starting in September, raising the age cut-off for the parenting payment single, providing direct relief to 57,000 single parents, predominantly women; an increase in rental assistance for 1.1 million households; and increases in JobSeeker, Austudy and youth allowance, helping 1.1 million Australians. But those opposite have announced they want to block this relief. They had their own plan that it took them forever to come up with, which would actually put, conservatively, 50,000 additional people onto JobSeeker. That's what their plan would do. No wonder they didn't want to put out the costings. The party of robodebt are at it again, attacking the most vulnerable, not worrying about those people who are doing it tough. They haven't learned, they won't change and Australians will pay the price. (Time expired)

My question is for the Treasurer. Victorians are paying a fortune for electricity because of the massive increases in gas and coal prices, while fossil fuel corporations are making windfall profits. Will you rip up your undercooked petroleum resources rent tax and instead introduce a fair and progressive tax on fossil fuel so we can put downward pressure on inflation and invest more in renewables, which are the cheapest source of energy?

Opposition members interjecting—

Members on my left will cease interjecting.

Thank you to the member for Kooyong for her question. We intend to proceed with the design of the PRRT changes, which were one of the features of the May budget. The reason is that this is the best way to make sure the offshore LNG industry pays more tax sooner, and we are talking here about $2.4 billion in additional tax. Whether it's the improvements to the bulk-billing incentive or whether it's the cost-of-living assistance that is rolling out right now, that $2.4 billion will make a substantial contribution.

As the honourable member knows, the process that led to this policy change has been a long one, before the life of this government, and it culminated in some advice from Treasury, which has been in the news and which is why, I suspect, the honourable member is asking the question today. The Treasury provided three options. Of the three options in the final Treasury advice, the one I chose actually raises more money over the forward estimates than the other alternatives in the options presented to us, and that is an important consideration as well, to the honourable member who asked the question.

We want to see the offshore LNG industry pay more tax sooner. We've come up with a way, with the help of the Treasury and on the recommendation of the Treasury, to ensure we can do that while protecting our international relationships, protecting the jobs in the sector and recognising that gas will play a role as a transition fuel as we embark on this net-zero transformation, which I personally believe passionately in, as do my colleagues on this side of the House. So $2.4 billion that we wouldn't see without these efforts, based on the Treasury recommendations, the three options presented to me, I think a good return for the Australian taxpayer sooner so we can fund the things we truly value in our society. Whether it be health care, whether it be cost-of-living help, whether it be rent assistance or whether it be building more social and affordable homes—all things we need to do—this money will help offset some of those important priorities.

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Amidst the ongoing fear campaign about the government's workplace relations reform, can the minister clarify the Albanese Labor government's record on employment and wages outcomes?

The member for Page is warned.

I thank the member for Lyons, someone who's always working for regional Tasmania. It's worth considering, with the fear campaigns that he referred to in his question, what those opposite actually predicted about our workplace reforms. What did they say would occur? The Leader of the Opposition said it's going to result in a higher unemployment rate. Senator Henderson said this is a job destroyer. Senator Cash was more nuanced, and said it would close down Australia!

What we have now is an unemployment rate at 3½ per cent and a participation rate at 66.8 per cent. We are now just shy of half a million new jobs since this government came to office. And the feature as to what's happened to those jobs, because this government said we wanted to see more secure jobs, is that what we have now is that 85 per cent of those new jobs are full-time jobs. You have a situation where in our first 12 months 54 per cent of all new jobs that were created were for women going into full-time work. This is where what the government has done with respect to cheaper child care intersects with what we've done with workforce flexibility and intersects with what we've done with job security. It is delivering those sorts of job security outcomes that those opposite predicted the opposite of.

Even more bizarre are their wages predictions compared to what we're getting now. The 2014 budget—the Leader of the Opposition will remember the 2014 budget; it's the one where he tried to abolish bulk-billing—was the one where they predicted that wage growth would get a three in front of it, that the following year would be three per cent. By the end of government they ended up predicting they would get 3.25 per cent wage growth. How did they go across those years they were predicting three? 2.6, 2.1, 2.1, 1.9, 2.1, 2.3, 1.8 and 1.8. What do we have now? 3.7. What's the difference? Under them, low wage growth was a deliberate design feature of their management of the economy. When you change the policies to deliver wage growth, look at what happens: wages grow. 5.75 per cent changing on awards right now for 2.7 million workers. For people in aged care, a 15 per cent increase in their wages. These are wage increases that those opposite always opposed and voted against but this government delivers.

There was far too much noise during that answer. The members for Deakin, O'Connor and Hume are warned. There won't be any second chances today.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Will the minister rule out federal cultural heritage reforms that require individual farming businesses to undertake mandatory cultural surveys to conduct agricultural practices on their private property?

I am delighted to receive this question from the Leader of the National Party and to say what a great thing it has been—I don't often say this about the former minister for the environment—to inherit these cultural heritage reforms at the very advanced stage that we've inherited them. What we're aiming to do as a government is make sure that we have better protection for First Nations heritage and more certainty for business, farmers and other land users. These twin objectives came out of some very substantial work done after the destruction of Juukan Gorge in two inquiries led by the member for Leichhardt. I thank him and the committee for the excellent work that they did coming out of Juukan Gorge.

If I could just take the parliament back for a moment to remind people of what happened there: a 46,000-year-old sacred site was destroyed by a mining company. The tragedy was that irreplaceable heritage was lost legally. It was done legally. What this parliament realised was that our laws were not fit for purpose. If 46,000-year-old sacred sites can be destroyed legally, those laws are not fit for purpose. So the previous government, coming out of those Juukan Gorge inquiries, which had a number of very substantial recommendations, set up a process with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. The former Minister for the Environment signed a contract with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance to come up with an options paper. As I said, the work began under those opposite. We have released the options paper. Options papers are designed to begin conversations, and the former Minister for the Environment said very clearly that starting this national conversation was exactly the right thing to do.

The Leader of the Nationals, on a point of order.

On relevance: it was very tight about whether the minister will rule out mandatory cultural surveys for agricultural practice. No-one is challenging what happened with the gorge. This is about agricultural practices, and it was very specific. No matter what the former government did, it's about what this government will do. Will they rule it out? There was no decision made.

The Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The minister is being relevant to the question because she is talking about the heritage reforms. I'm listening to her.

The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting. I'm just going to listen carefully for the remaining 35 seconds. She is being relevant to the question, so she's relevant to the standing orders.

I thank the Leader of the Nationals for his intervention. Just to reassure him, we're not proposing any takeover of state laws. We're not proposing any duplication of state laws. Heritage protection will predominantly remain a matter for states and territories. What we're seeking to do is update our First Nations cultural heritage protections, as those opposite suggested we should do, as two Juukan Gorge inquiries led by the member for Leichhardt suggested, as the work begun by the former Minister for the Environment— (Time expired)

The member for Forrest will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for Werriwa.

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. When can the people in my electorate of Werriwa expect to receive some cost-of-living relief delivered through the Albanese Labor government's strengthening the safety net package?

I'd like to thank the member for Werriwa for her question. Of course, our government knows many Australians are doing it tough right now. That's why we've outlined in our budget cost-of-living relief for millions of Australians—cost-of-living relief that's responsible and cost-of-living relief that is targeted. Through our $14.6 billion cost-of-living relief plan the government has a plan to help millions of Australians in different circumstances and different settings. This of course includes relief from power bills, cheaper medicines and historic investment into Medicare, and our families are benefiting from our cheaper childcare plan and enhanced paid parental leave.

But one of the key focuses of our cost-of-living package is to help those doing it toughest. Improvements we announced in the budget to many income support payments delivered through our strengthening safety net bill are currently before the Senate, and they will do some really important things. They will increase support for eligible working-age payments and student payments. They will extend the eligibility for jobseekers to the higher rate to help more older Australians that face long-term unemployment, often as a result of discrimination or sickness. It extends the eligibility for parenting payment single to help 57,000 extra single parents get extra support.

It's providing the largest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years. Combined, these measures will give extra assistance to around two million Australians on income support. I'm pleased to inform the member who asked the question, and all members of the house, that this support will flow very soon, from 20 September, in seven short weeks. That is, of course, if the bill passes the Senate. I woke up this morning surprised to see that those opposite are deciding to block our safety net bill. They want to deny those on the lowest incomes an increase of $40 a fortnight. This is outrageous and it shows what heartless, heartless people they are. Of course they want to block our rent assistance. They want to block our increase to the single parenting payment. They want to block extra support for those over 55, because that's what our bill does. It provides important cost-of-living relief. It is time that those opposite stopped playing politics with that. Stop playing politics with those who need our help. Get out of the way, in the Senate, let the bill pass and— (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. This month the Prime Minister told Ben Fordham that the Voice 'is not about a treaty'. But in May the Prime Minister said that treaty and truth telling are:

… very much a part of the next phase, if you like. And one of the things that a Voice to Parliament would be able to do is to talk about Makarrata—the need for agreement making and coming together after a conflict.

Why did this tricky Prime Minister say one thing to one group of Australians and completely the opposite to another?

I thank the member for her question and I thank whoever it was who interjected about my T-shirt because, yes, Ben Fordham has exposed the fact that at a Midnight Oil concert I wore a Midnight Oil T-shirt. I know! Hold the front page! At the Oil's last ever concert I wore an Oils T-shirt. What I said on Ben Fordham was that the referendum isn't about a treaty and isn't about truth. It's about one thing. It is about voice. It's about recognition and it's about listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people so that we get better results. That's what it's about. But the opponents of the Voice—you wonder why. The member who asked the question said this on Insiders on 23 July: firstly, 'I want to see constitutional recognition of our First Australians.' Well, we're all agreed then. So tick, tick.

Order. The Prime Minister will pause. The minister for climate change will cease interjecting. The deputy leader will be heard in silence for her point of order.

It's a point of order on relevance. There was no T-shirt in the question. There was no quote from me in the question. There were your own words, Prime Minister, in the question and your own contradiction about treaty or no treaty.

You may resume your seat. The Prime Minister is referring to comments he made on the radio station. I would suggest interjections are highly disorderly, so do not interject. The Prime Minister won't respond to the interjections.

I'm speaking about what this referendum is about. It strikes me that the opponents of the referendum—those who are advocating a 'no' vote—want to talk about everything but what the question is about: recognition and listening in order to get better results. That is what it is about. But the deputy leader went on to say this about the Voice, because she was asked:

The voice is important in the way that it may close the gap and the way it may improve the lives of Indigenous people.

Well, we agree with that, too. So, then you wonder why it is that they're not supporting it. And they come up with the idea that it's legislation, and they say this: 'All legislation requires exposure drafts.' That's what she said, and 'It requires conversations, it requires debate; I mean, it will include all the things that actually produce good legislation at the end of the process, and that's what I want to see.'

Well, a yes result in the referendum will see the Voice being legislated before this parliament as a result of that good process. That's the whole point here. Those opposite are so desperate to make a political point at the expense of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that they want to talk about everything but what is in the referendum in the last quarter of this year. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How are the Albanese Labor government's changes to make early learning more affordable, which came into effect earlier this month, benefiting Australian families by delivering real, responsible cost-of-living relief?

May I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. It demonstrates just how incredibly passionate he is about supporting families in Bennelong and ensuring that they can give their children the very best start in life.

Since we were last here in this House, the Albanese government's increase to the childcare subsidy has meant that more than 1.2 million families who have children in care are better off. That includes around 9,400 families in the electorate of Bennelong. These are changes that our Prime Minister announced as opposition leader and a policy that we took to the election. This government delivers on our promises, and we put the needs of Australian families first. That's why we made the changes to the childcare subsidy, not just because it was the right thing to do but because we know that making early childhood education and care more affordable pays a triple dividend: it provides real cost-of-living relief to parents and families, it gives children access to those transformational benefits of early learning and, importantly, it drives productivity, boosting our economy.

These changes are benefiting families across the country right now. This morning the Minister for Education, Minister Clare, and I had the absolute pleasure of meeting the Ramirez-Pendleton family and their beautiful daughter, Paloma. The parents, Blanca and Chris, and their adorable three-year-old, Paloma, told us just how impactful these changes have been for them. They can now afford to send Paloma to full-time early learning. That's an extra day that they've gained because of the Albanese government's changes to the childcare subsidy. This means that the mother, Blanca, can now pick up an extra day of work. That is a huge change to the family and a huge benefit to them. It gives them greater flexibility. It puts more money into their household budget.

We know that families like this right across Australia are also benefiting from our changes. Families like Blanca, Chris and Paloma are benefiting from these reforms. And the Albanese government will continue to make families like theirs a priority by providing real and responsible cost-of-living relief in our budget and in every measure that we take, whilst also laying the foundations for a better future—a better future for our children, like three-year-old Paloma, and a better future for our country.

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. If Australians vote for the Voice, the makarrata commission will be established. Can the minister inform the House of how the makarrata commission will work?

Can I thank the member for his question. The referendum later this year is about constitutional recognition through a voice. It's not about anything else. Later this year, we will all be asked a simple question, and it will go like this: do you support a change to the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice? The referendum is to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through a voice. Those opposite are trying to muddy the waters. The role of the Voice will be to provide advice on how best to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—advice on things like health, education, jobs and housing. It's about constitutional recognition that gets concrete results.

My question is to be Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cheaper medicines, and why is the government determined to provide further cost-of-living relief to families?

I thank the member for Fremantle for his question. He is a passionate advocate for better health care in his community and for Labor's promise of cheaper medicines. Already we are delivering on that promise. Last July, we cut the maximum amount that millions of pensioners and concession card holders would pay for their medicines across the year by 25 per cent. No matter how many medicines they're on, the most they'll pay across the year is an average of just $5 a week. In September, we cut the price of 2,000 brands of medicine, delivering $130 million back into the pockets of hardworking patients. On 1 January, we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS, slashing the maximum payment from a $42 a script to just $30. In just six months, that has delivered almost $120 million in savings to hardworking Australian patients.

We know, and the member for Fremantle knows, there is more to do, especially during a global cost-of-living shock like we are living through right now. That's why we have accepted the advice from the medicine experts that has been there for five years to allow 60-day prescriptions for ongoing health conditions at the same price as a 30-day script. This will halve the cost of 300 medicines for six million patients. Thirty-day scripts make sense for a one-off course of medicine, for example, for a bout of an infectious disease. They make absolutely no sense at all for stable patients who are on the same medicines year in, year out, decade in, decade out, sometimes for their entire life. That's why pretty much every patient group has supported our policy. It will also free up millions of GP consults, which we all know are desperately needed right now, which is why every doctors group supports our policy. We have promised to reinvest every single dollar that the government saves from this measure back into community pharmacies. On Friday, I announced the last details of that reinvestment, which will be focused on a small, rural pharmacies.

Against all of that—all of the expert advice, the policy logic, the support of every patient group and every doctor group—I read in the Australian newspaper this morning that the opposition is going to try to block cheaper medicines in the Senate for six million patients. Perhaps it's no surprise from the Leader of the Opposition, who as health minister, we all remember, tried to jack up the price of medicines by $5 for each and every script. But we are determined to deliver on our commitment. Cheaper medicines are good for the hip pocket and good for health.

My question is to the Prime Minister. I and others on the crossbench have called for a royal commission into offshore processing. Now we learn that the Department of Home Affairs continued to award contracts involving millions of taxpayers' money despite being warned by the AFP that the businessman involved was under investigation for bribery. He was subsequently charged and convicted. Will the Prime Minister refer this matter to the NACC and/or institute a royal commission or some other form of broader independent inquiry into offshore processing?

I thank the member for her question. I say this not about the specific but the general. We need to avoid the idea that every politician will say to every issue, 'Refer to the NACC.' It's easy. The NACC will operate independently and at arm's length. I have said consistently, but I say to members in this House as well, they need to avoid this temptation to say, 'Oh, I'll refer it to the NACC,' over every issue that is raised. These are serious issues and allegations that have been raised. We are acting quickly and decisively. It is appropriate that an independent, eminent reviewer have a look at what has occurred, that departmental officials be obligated to cooperate if instructed to do so and that the ministers and the people at the time, including the Leader of the Opposition, cooperate with an inquiry.

Today we have announced that we will appoint Mr Dennis Richardson AC, a former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Department of Defence and Director-General of Security, someone who is one of Australia's pre-eminent public servants, to have a full look and a thorough examination of this. The review will consider governance practices and these allegations in the wider context of serious issues that have emerged over this time. In particular, it will consider any integrity concerns about contracting arrangements regarding regional processing, whether public or otherwise, as well as the department's governance arrangements, not just to look at what's happened in the past but to make sure that appropriate mechanisms are put in place in the future. I ask the Minister for Home Affairs to add to the answer.

I acknowledge the member for Goldstein's longstanding advocacy around the integrity of government. It's a passion that's very much shared by those of us on this side of the chamber. One of the first actions of our government was to legislate for a National Anti-Corruption Commission, and you were a key advocate for that. I want to acknowledge that.

The Prime Minister has quite comprehensively covered the response of the government, but I'll fill in a few details so that the parliament is aware. There are very concerning allegations on the public record with regard to the management of offshore processing. The government is deeply concerned about those. As soon as these matters were raised, I asked the home affairs department to look thoroughly at the current regional processing arrangements to ensure that they are legal and appropriate, and I have received that assurance from my department. In terms of the historic allegations, it is absolutely clear that these warrant further investigation. These are serious allegations, and there is serious money involved, and no-one is going to get to the bottom of this like Dennis Richardson is.

My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government working to ensure that more Australians have access to safe and affordable housing, and what is blocking further progress?

I thank the Member for Newcastle for her interest in this matter and for the work she's been doing in her local community. I know that she knows that more housing is desperately needed, particularly social housing, in her community. Of course, we do have a broad housing agenda as a new Labor government. It is very broad, and it's also ambitious, but it's achievable.

The three bills central to our agenda were blocked by the Senate in the last parliamentary sitting: our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Funds Bill, our Supply and Affordability Council Bill and our bill to create Housing Australia. These three bills were blocked in the Senate by, of course, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens coming together to block these bills that will deliver more housing for Australians that need it most. This is an opportunity for people to get out and about in their electorates and talk to people, particularly those who have been in public and social housing recently. We're talking about 30,000 new social homes in the first five years of the fund, of which 4,000 are for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence and for older women over 55.

During the break, I had the opportunity to go to Burnie, to meet with some new residents who'd been in this new social housing, one of them for one week and the other for two weeks. I particularly want to talk about Lorilee. Lorilee had been homeless for two years before getting into her new home just two weeks ago. She said to me, 'I have spent all of my time and my energy, each and every day for the last two years, just finding somewhere safe to sleep. And I have spent every bit of energy in trying to work out what I am going to eat, because I have no home.' Lorilee has been put into one of these new homes, I'm pleased to say. I asked her what she'll do now. She said, 'I'm going back to school.' She's a 40-year-old woman who's so proud of her new home. And that's what this means. These are homes for people who desperately need them. These are homes that we want to build.

When I talk to the community housing provider Housing Choices, they want to build more of these homes. When the Prime Minister and I spoke to community housing provider BlueCHP, who had also put people into new social homes, they want to build more of these homes. They are saying the Housing Australia Future Fund is critical to getting more of these types of homes on the ground. So I say to the Liberals, Nationals and Greens: go out and talk to some of the people who are currently sitting on public housing waiting lists about what it will mean to them. You are blocking homes when we want to build homes. Why are you standing in the way of getting more homes on the ground, for Australians who need them the most, when we have so many housing challenges today?

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. According to the website ulurustatement.org the Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for the establishment of a makarrata commission for the purpose of treaty making. Can the minister inform the House how the makarrata commission will work?

The Prime Minister, on a point of order?

Yes. The member for Bradfield asked a question quoting from a website that is not a government website and then asked for the minister's view of that government website.

The question goes to a website that I certainly don't know the contents of.

An honourable member interjecting—

Order! I don't. The minister cannot be responsible for every website in the country—or the world, for that matter. I would ask the manager to rephrase his question, to make sure it is within the purvey of the minister's responsibilities, which is the Minister for Indigenous Australians.

The minister does squarely have responsibility for these matters but, to assist the House, I'll be very happy to rephrase the question. My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. At the Garma Festival last year she said, 'The Uluru statement talks about an enshrined voice in the Constitution but it also talks about the establishment of a makarrata commission.' She also said, 'The Prime Minister was very clear that we will embrace and implement the Uluru statement in full.' So I ask the minister again: how will the makarrata commission work?

The question is in order, regarding the minister's statements.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart was a simple and generous request, a request that was made by over 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates at the Uluru convention in 2017 after dialogues, with the community, right across the country.

The first thing that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people asked for at Uluru was constitutional recognition through a voice. This is an idea that came from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, not from politicians. The Australian people will have the opportunity later this year to make the Voice a reality. This referendum is about recognition, listening and better results. It's about making a practical difference in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in areas like health, education, jobs and employment.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government drawing on Indigenous knowledge and expertise to manage and restore Australia's environment, and what lessons can we learn from these programs?

I want to thank the member for Lingiari for showing me a really good time in the Northern Territory last week. I travelled up and met with her to announce our government's commitment to adding 10 new Indigenous protected areas to our national estate. This will add millions of hectares to the land that will be protected for nature as part of our national estate.

I was with the member for Lingiari at the Katiti-Petermann protected area, next to the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park in the beautiful red heart of our country. It is such a treat to be able to spend a day on country with Indigenous rangers on an Indigenous protected area—people who know their land like no-one else does, people who are better prepared to care for that land than anyone else is. We heard about the cultural burning work that the rangers are doing to reduce the intensity of bushfires. We heard about their work on feral species management—in particular, cats and camels, which are causing so much destruction in the centre—and their work in dealing with invasive plants like buffel grass, which competes with native grasses, destroys the habitat of the animals that live in the area and, of course, burns very hot, contributing to very destructive wildfires.

IPAs are a terrific homegrown success story. They already cover 87 million hectares of land and five million hectares of sea. But what is important about them is how they are managed. We spoke to rangers there, listened to their expertise, listened to their love of country. They also made the very good point that where you have Indigenous protected areas managed by Indigenous rangers you get better environmental outcomes and you also get better economic outcomes. I had one of the rangers say to me: 'Look, it just makes no sense. We had young people here sitting around being paid unemployment benefits. Instead they're now earning more. At the same time they're contributing more economically to their local community, they're also contributing more to environmental protections around their local community.'

I'm also delighted to be announcing this week, with the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the doubling of the number of Indigenous ranger positions that this government will support. This is an important environmental measure; it's an important economic measure as well. It just shows that when we talk to people about the things that are important in their lives and important in their communities we get better decisions. That's what the Voice is all about. It's about acknowledgement and it's about listening, for better results. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Europe is burning, and Australians remember our own Black Summer with fear for the future. The UN Secretary-General has said we have entered a period of 'global boiling'. Do you agree with his assessment, and, if so, why does your government continue to approve new coalmines and continue to delay crucial reform to environmental laws, and why has it still not delivered a national risk assessment?

I thank the minister for Wentworth for her question. I certainly agree that climate change is real, that the science has been settled and that we need to respond, as a globe, to climate change. It would appear to be the case that July is likely to be the hottest month experienced on record, and here in Australia as well. For people who have experienced a July that is unusually dry and hot compared with what has occurred in the past, we know that it is having an impact here. And we know that the warnings of scientists—that extreme weather events are more intense and more frequent—are, tragically, proving to be correct.

Last week I was with the member for Gilmore down at Ulladulla, meeting with people engaged with Landcare but also meeting people who lost their homes in the bushfires of 2019-20. I did that in part to talk publicly about the need for preparation for the upcoming season. People need to take precautions very early on, much earlier on then they would have anticipated because of what we went through with the massive fires in 2019-20, where we indeed saw some rainforests burn for the first time since scientists could ascertain how long they had been in existence for. We saw unprecedented activities. This was not business as usual.

That's why people on the ground are certainly responding, and governments need to respond with them. They need to respond through mitigation and through those measures that are important to preparedness, but we also need to prepare with a policy response. That's why my government has enshrined in legislation net zero by 2050 and a 43 per cent reduction by 2030 while we're working with our Pacific neighbours but also working globally through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to have a comprehensive plan of being a part of the world solution, encouraging our neighbours to move as well.

It is important at the same time that we bring the community with us as well. These things take time. You've had a decade of denial. You can't just flick the switch. You need to make sure that people continue to have access to reliable energy, and we are doing so whilst we transition in a way that is in the interests of Australia but indeed— (Time expired)

My question is the Minister for Government Services. What did the royal commission into robodebt's final report find as to who was responsible for the design, development and establishment of the cruel and unlawful scheme, and were there any other important observations made by the commission?

Prior to the 2022 election, the Albanese opposition promised robodebt victims that we would have a royal commission into robodebt if elected. The royal commission has now concluded. There were 46 days of public hearings. Over 100 people gave evidence. On 7 July, Commissioner Holmes handed down her final report. The government is considering the 57 recommendations that it contained.

Commissioner Holmes forensically examined who was responsible for the design, the development and establishment of the robodebt scheme. The royal commission outlined how successive former Liberal governments, despite repeated warnings, continued to break the law, victimising vulnerable Australians. The royal commission goes to the role of the member for Cook, who was social services minister and who first took robodebt to cabinet in 2015. The member for Cook, in a press release on 21 May 2015, said we'll put a 'strong welfare cop on the beat to track down suspected welfare fraud.' Under oath at the royal commission in December 2022, the member for Cook's evidence was that income averaging, the process underpinning the unlawful robodebt scheme, was a 'foundational way' the then Department of Human Services worked. However, Commissioner Holmes found in the final report at page 102:

The Commission rejects as untrue Mr Morrison's evidence that he was told that income averaging as contemplated in the Executive Minute was an established practice and a "foundational way" …

She goes on to say at page 106:

Mr Morrison knew that the use of income averaging was the primary basis of the "new approach" described in the Executive Minute and that DSS had advised DHS that legislative change was required to implement the DHS proposal …

She continues:

The NPP represented a complete reversal of the legal position without explanation. Mr Morrison was not entitled without further question to rely upon the contradictory content of the NPP on the question of the DSS legal position …

The royal commission went on to say:

Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry.

She continues:

He failed to meet his ministerial responsibility to ensure that Cabinet was properly informed about what the proposal actually entailed and to ensure that it was lawful.

I note that Mr Morrison has disputed the royal commission findings. He may have convinced himself, but he failed to convince the royal commission and, indeed, most Australians.

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Mr Speaker, under standing order 105, I ask if you can write to the minister for infrastructure to seek reasons for the delay in answering question in writing No. 107 that I asked of the minister on 9 May 2023.

I shall write to the minister as the standing order provides.

Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 105(b), I wish to draw your attention to overdue questions in writing, question Nos 148 and 149, both regarding the Railway Parklands project. I ask that you write to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and seek an explanation as to why she has chosen not to answer my questions in writing within 60 days.

I shall respond as the standing orders require.

Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 105(b), I wish to draw your attention to 10 overdue questions in writing: question Nos 128, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143 and 144. Questions 143 and 144 relate to the finalising of the awarding of the Republic of Vietnam campaign medal. With just over two weeks to go to the formal commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War, these veterans deserve a timely answer. Questions 136 through to 142 should be easy for this government to answer. They are: who in the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Australian War Memorial are considered members of the executive government—

The member will indicate the questions and not give commentary.

Mr Speaker, I ask that you write to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and to the Minister for Veterans Affairs, respectively, and seek their explanation as to why they've chosen not to answer my questions within 60 days.

I shall write to the ministers as the standing orders provide.

Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the question I wrote to the Minister for Resources over 60 days ago: question No. 150. It concerned Federal Court rulings in the case of Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v District Council of Kimba and the awarding of costs against that corporation. The government underwrote the Kimba council and, at this stage, has not pursued those costs. Can you pursue an answer?

For the benefit of members asking me, I just require the question, not the commentary. I shall write to the minister as the standing orders provide.

I present Auditor-General's Audit reports Nos 41 to 45 of 2022-23.

Documents made parliamentary papers.

I table documents in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

I move:

That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to Mr Bandt for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report No. 495 inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration, incorporating a dissenting report—a very rare phrase for our committee.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—At the outset—because we have three reports to table, two of them relatively significant—I apologise for what I might say is a table-athon. I asked the Table Office to split them up but they said we have to do them all at once, so we're going to be here for a while.

The ramifications of this report into Commonwealth grants administration are serious, and the implementation of the committee's recommendations will make a significant difference to how grants are assessed and awarded across the Commonwealth. Tens of thousands of grants, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, are awarded by the Commonwealth via grants every year, and taxpayers deserve value for money. Unfortunately, clear evidence of a serial noncompliance with the Commonwealth grant rules and guidelines and program guidelines under the previous government was presented in evidence to the committee—across multiple programs. In plain English, the previous government rorted and manipulated billions of dollars of grants for purely political purposes. It is rare that I am lost for words, but I was struggling to think of enough adjectives to describe the size of this industrial-scale rorting. Giant, massive, stupendous, humongous, vast, colossal, immense, mammoth, gigantic slush funds—they treated taxpayer money as if it were Liberal Party money. Instead of transparently allocating public funds, the previous government pursued this industrial-scale rorting for blatantly partisan purposes.

Rorting grants programs doesn't only waste money—it degrades public trust. The committee was especially appalled to receive clear evidence in writing and in public hearings that the politicisation of the previous government's regional grants programs corroded public trust to the point that some councils simply stopped applying due to the evidence-based belief that they would never get a fair go. Principles of fairness, competitive process by default, transparency and value for money were simply disregarded, and records of critical decisions were not kept.

It's difficult to know, from reading the dissenting report, what is more perplexing: that the previous government did what they did with billions of dollars of taxpayer funds or that they still do not acknowledge that what they did was utterly wrong. If the first step to recovery is to admit that you have a problem then it's clear from the attitude to this inquiry that the Liberal and National parties are still living in denial. It is simply not good enough. Through the inquiry, those trying to defend this egregious behaviour said, 'No illegality was identified,' when the assessment processes were repeatedly, systematically and systemically perverted—especially so when the funding decisions resulted in ridiculously partisan outcomes. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Dismissing legitimate criticism and evidence of the Liberals' industrial-scale rorting of grant programs as politically motivated is surely peak irony.

I note that, curiously, they did not disagree with the recommendations for change—they were just very upset that they were exposed for their rorting. It's really unclear why they dissented. The numbers tell the story. The reports of the Auditor-General examined in this inquiry—and they examined a large number of reports—the evidence revealed shockingly partisan outcomes across major grants programs, including: the multibillion-dollar Urban Congestion Fund, which included the infamous commuter car parks; various regional grants programs; the Regional Grants Fund; and the Safer Communities Program. In the now-defunct commuter car park program established by the previous government under the UCF, almost 75 per cent of the funding—and this is for urban areas, mind—went to coalition sees with no competitive process. A whole chunk more went to seats they were trying to win—colour-coded spreadsheets, secret shadow assessment processes run out of ministers' offices. At the hearing we spent quite some time inquiring—though we never did get a good answer—how on earth a set of pedestrian traffic lights on a small, two-lane road in Camberwell was in any way a national urban congestion priority, but it was right outside Josh Frydenberg's electorate office, so that must have been the reason.

The committee clearly acknowledges in the report that ministers rightly retain discretion and authority to accept or reject funding recommendations by officials and apply their own critical judgement. They're not rubber stamps. But the committee supports the Auditor-General's view that ministerial discretion around grant awards is not absolute. Ministers are not gods. They're subject to the law and the rules, and must properly and fully document their reasons for decisions. Non-competitive grant processes will sometimes be necessary or even preferable under the rules, such as in cases of urgency or where, for a policy reason, there's only one suitable recipient. Notably, the Auditor-General indicated that the non-competitive processes had started to become the norm under the previous government and that there's a need to amend the rules to strengthen the default presumption in favour of competitive programs.

Regarding election commitments, the committee agrees with the Auditor-General's view that grants that are formally approved by ministers before a caretaker period, and then announced during an election period, are not election commitments. They're decisions taken by government that are recorded in the pre-budget bottom line and are not election commitments. It is perfectly legitimate and appropriate for a government to establish dedicated programs to implement their election commitments, but, as the Auditor-General advised the committee, they remain subject to the grant rules and the PGPA Act. They have to follow the law. They still have to demonstrate compliance with the guidelines and show value for money for the investments. Many payments fall outside the scope of the grants rules framework as well. In particular, the current arrangements are that corporate Commonwealth entities—which, peculiarly, includes the NDIA, as an example—are not subject the Commonwealth grant rules, but the committee sees no reason why this should continue to be the case, given the rules are not onerous.

I'm not going to go through all six recommendations, you will be pleased to know. They're aimed at strengthening the Commonwealth grants administration processes, and they include implementation of an eighth principle in the grant rules—get this—that the decision-makers must adhere to the guidelines. Strangely, we got to the point in a then Liberal dominated committee—it was after the sports rorts last term, I think—where they made the recommendation that their own ministers needed to follow the rules. The previous government, in an act of duplicity, responded to that report and said they'd implement it, but they didn't actually do anything. So we recommend that this time the change be made.

We recommended there should be clarification of how an election commitment is defined in the Department of Finance guide on government grants. There should be a range of actual changes to the grants rules, to strengthen them, to provide that competitive merit based processes should be the default. The program guidelines must disclose the role of stakeholders, including MPs, and outline how the advocacy from stakeholders, and their input, will be considered—no shadow processes like we saw, with billions of dollars, where only Liberal MPs got to input to the grants programs. No secret, coloured spreadsheets.

Just a moment. Arising on a point of order?

Yes. I'd ask the member for Bruce to withdraw his earlier comment about the former government because I think it's completely unparliamentary, and he should know better than that. I'm not going to repeat it, for the sake of the House, but he knows what he said.

I didn't hear anything, but if you would withdraw for the benefit of the House—

I issue a general withdrawal to satisfy the member for Forde, for whatever it related to. You can tell me later. I'm not withdrawing the accusation of rorting, because that's what the evidence said, and I'm reading directly from the report's findings, Member for Forde.

We also say that funding approvals against agency recommendations must be clearly recorded, reported promptly to the Minister for Finance and published online within three months.

This change is greatly upsetting to the National Party: the committee has recommended that decision-makers should no longer be able to just choose their favourite projects from a great big pool of recommendations. This was the favourite trick of the National Party. They'd get a great big list from the department, and it would show all the projects that were eligible. There might be $4 billion of projects and $400 million of funding, and then the minister would just pick. Under the current rules, that's not rejecting a funding recommendation, so we think that needs to change. There are very limited circumstances where that would be acceptable. Other factors by which grants will be assessed should be fully transparent and appropriately evaluated and scored. They had a trick later in their time in office where they started adding in these 'other factors', which was their way of trying to legitimise the secret, coloured spreadsheets. We also say that the onus should be reversed and that the rules should apply to all corporate Commonwealth entities unless exceptions are made. There are a range of findings in relation to the grants hubs.

It's disappointing that the bipartisan tradition of the audit committee has been breached on this occasion, as these recommendations and findings should receive bipartisan support because they're based on compelling evidence. As I said, in their dissenting report they didn't disagree with the recs; they just didn't like the evidence that called them out. Given the denial that they're still in, it's not surprising. Hopefully the implementation, if the government takes it up, of the committee's recommendations will make a material difference to grants administration and contribute to rebuilding public trust.

I thank the numerous contributors to the inquiry. I thank the committee secretariat—I see the committee secretary over there, Jenny Adams, who's doing an absolutely sterling job managing our numerous inquiries—for their professionalism in supporting the work of the committee.

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

I'm continuing the table-athon! On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following reports: Report 496 inquiry into the Defence major projects report 2020-21 and 2021-22 and procurement of Hunter class frigates; interim report on the 2020-21 and 2021-22 Defence major projects report; and Report 497 inquiry into Commonwealth financial statements 2021-22. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the reports.

Is leave granted for a short statement?

It's not actually that short. One of them is very short. I'll do the short one first—how's that? I cleared this—

Before you do, I'll give you leave.

Leave granted.

Great! I feel validated.

The second report I referred to is an interim report of the committee's inquiry. It details our review and is ruling a line under our consideration of the 2020-21 and 2021-22 major projects reports. The major projects reports are prepared annually by the Department of Defence and the Audit Office together to provide a greater level of assurance that taxpayer funds on major projects in Defence are used as efficiently and effectively as possible, and to increase the transparency of these projects to the parliament and the Australian public. The MPR is a comprehensive product containing detailed information from Defence on these major projects and the ANAO's examination of projects' performance.

The committee's report makes three recommendations: two which address fairly routine issues identified in previous years about how Defence accesses contingency funding, capturing the lessons learnt, and its use of caveats and deficiencies in its capability reporting—this stuff is pretty boring and arcane, but it's an incredibly important report that the parliament itself commissioned about 15 years ago to bring some greater order into capital acquisition, which constitutes still around one-third of the national defence budget—and one which seeks to have Defence elevate projects to the projects of concern list in a timely manner.

A sentence or two about that. The committee was concerned by what was revealed to be a seriously excessive 13-month delay between the then Minister for Defence making a formal decision that the civil-military air traffic management system project was off track and must become a project of concern. There was then, inexplicably, a 13-month delay in implementing that decision. The projects of concern list and the minister's new projects of interest list ensure that projects receive additional support as well as provide transparency to the parliament and the public on the performance of major projects. It's a fact of life that some major defence projects are going to be off track, and the earlier they get on these lists and get the attention they need the better. There's no point in having the system, though, if there are delays of over a year in adding projects to the list which the minister has decided are clearly off track. There's a little bit behind that, but I won't go into it.

The next phases of this inquiry—because this is an interim report—will examine the Department of Defence's procurement of the Hunter class frigate, which is a project included in the MPR as well as the MPR's scope and guidelines. We've had pretty much the same report for about 15 years. It's relatively narrow but very deep, so we pick a limited number of projects and go very deep. That might be the best approach, but it's about time we stepped back and thought, 'Well, what do the US congressional budget office and similar parliaments do?' For example, other parliaments go much broader but not as deep. We'll give that a bit of thought.

I want to thank Defence and the ANAO for their cooperation with the inquiry to date and look forward to engaging with them further as the inquiry continues. I thank the committee secretariat, and I thank my colleagues on the committee for their collegiate deliberation on these matters, particularly the deputy chair, Senator Reynolds, a former Minister for Defence. It's actually terrific having her experience and knowledge engaging in this kind of detail.

I turn now to the second tabling statement in relation to the Commonwealth financial statements: 'The Auditor-General works on behalf of the parliament to scrutinise the executive.' It's a statement of the obvious, but there's one very peculiar matter in this report, so that needs to be there as context. Every year the audit office examines all of the Commonwealth financial statements and reporting by 248 separate entities 'to assess risk, governance arrangements and internal control frameworks'. The report went on to say:

In the 2021-22 financial statements audit, the highest number of significant moderate findings were in the categories of IT security—

cyber security stuff—

and accounting and control of non-financial assets.

The main focus thematically that we took to the 2021-22 financial statements were:

and a very peculiar issue regarding—

I'll make some brief remarks on each; firstly, on home affairs' financial sustainability. I received a leaked document, which informed this part of the inquiry. It was prepared under the previous Liberal government. It was a secret independent budget review of Home Affairs in 2022, which:

… indicated that the department's baseline situation was misaligned with its core activities and that it was balancing risk, service delivery and the cost of doing business in an unsustainable manner.

It was like reading a dysfunctional family fight—an insight into the previous government.

One anonymous stakeholder stated to the review—it was there in bold in a little breakout box—that the Department of Home Affairs was set up to fail from the start. And it's not lost on anyone here that the minister that was in charge of the department is the now Leader of the Opposition. This serious mess was exacerbated by the former government's waste of $92 million—their own report outlined this—on a failed visa privatisation. They failed to privatise the visa processing system, which they were trying to do, and blew 92 million bucks along the way. Despite which, Home Affairs was still forced to cop their pencilled in savings of $180 million that couldn't be realised. Why? And we discussed this in the inquiry. Why couldn't they complete the privatisation? Well, everyone who tendered was a Liberal mate and a mate of the former Prime Minister sitting over there, including the infamous Scott Briggs. But, despite the fact they blew $92 million on a failed privatisation, and $42 million on a PowerPoint or something from one of the consultants, BCG, they still cut the budget of the department by $180 million. Shame! The report went on to say:

The Committee has therefore requested that Home Affairs provides it with an update within six months on how it has implemented the recommendations arising from the independent review and on its actions and those of Government to improve its budget sustainability.

Secondly, relation to agriculture's financial sustainability:

Evidence revealed—

and there was a lot of public debate through the inquiry—

that Agriculture has been facing an underlying structural cash deficit for many years, driven by the cost recovery of biosecurity functions.

In plain English, the department was flat bloke. They had been dipping into their accumulated surplus like bandaid and sticky tape and piggy bank for years, and they'd run out of money. That's what we inherited. For years the former government failed to act to make any tough decisions about biosecurity fees and charges, despite being advised they had to. It was National Party incompetence. The report went on to say:

Given the critical importance of biosecurity activities and the economic and environmental costs of breaches, the Committee is of the view that the situation was fundamentally unsustainable …

All the Liberal and National members signed up to this in the report, to their credit. I'm pleased to note that the minister took major decisions in the budget to put the department on a sustainable footing.

Thirdly, in relation to NDIA's financial sustainability:

… the costs of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) have been increasing faster than anticipated, this poses real risks to its long-term sustainability. One of the aims of the current NDIS review is to shed some light on its operations and sustainability, and this is welcomed by the Committee.

The NDIA anticipates more certainty to the forward projections for NDIS expenditure. And the committee's requesting an update within six months on any gap between the projected and actual costs, and we're going to keep an eye on this.

The second big item that I mentioned—this is very peculiar, Deputy Speaker Claydon—is that the committee was concerned to learn from the Auditor-General—it was quite exercised by it—how the previous government made the payment by the Department of Defence to terminate the Attack-class submarine project. This contract cancellation was clearly an operating expense. But Defence used funds which had been appropriated by this parliament as equity funding, which is not operating expenditure. A real-world comparison: Defence used capital funding to pay an operating expense.

The committee concurs with the Auditor-General's view that these funds should not have been used for an operating expense without the permission of the parliament. This is a really arcane point. I know it's niche and nerdy. Frankly, no-one else in the world would care except, potentially, members of parliament. But it raises serious questions about both the constitutionality of the payments and, more fundamentally for this parliament, the controls that the parliament put over the executive when we appropriate money to a government. The Department of Defence and the Department of Finance clearly knew it was not appropriate, as they sought legal advice and tied themselves in knots throughout the inquiry trying to defend it. Frankly, it would have just been easier if they'd said: 'Yes, we shouldn't have done that; we won't do it again.' It would have saved a lot of angst.

Notwithstanding legal advice sought by the department of the potential constitutional implications, the committee concluded that this is not a matter for the courts. It's a matter for the parliament to determine the future financial controls over the executive. The committee is firmly standing up for this principle on behalf of this parliament to ensure it doesn't happen again, because if the principle isn't defended then it means that a future government may be able to spend whatever appropriation they want on whatever they want.

What is the point, then, of the financial controls in the appropriation bills when the parliament gives the government money? Odd-numbered bills are for the ordinary operating expenses of government which, under the Constitution, the Senate cannot amend. Even-numbered bills are for other things: new policy proposals, equity injections and so on. There's some weird, arcane 1960-something convention between the Senate and the House, that we had to look at, about how this stuff works.

The committee has recommended that the finance minister review this matter and accept our conclusion. The committee has also recommended that in the terminology in the framework, in future appropriation bills, that the finance minister clarifies that an equity injection or equity funding is non-operating expenditure.

The third and final point: cybersecurity vulnerabilities. We examined the important issue—like goldfish, on this committee, going around and around, here we are again: more cybersecurity issues. We examined vulnerabilities across Commonwealth entities. Unfortunately, IT issues have represented the majority of the Audit Office's adverse findings in its financial statements for many years now. The Attorney-General's Department has ownership of the Protective Security Policy Framework, which contains the cybersecurity strategies developed by the Australian Signals Directorate that are mandatory for most Commonwealth agencies. Each entity is responsible for the application of the PSPF and self-reports on its cybersecurity compliance.

However, the committee is concerned by the persistent optimism bias which the Auditor-General identified in these self-assessments. It suggests that agencies are understating the IT vulnerabilities that exist. Effectively, they're marking their own homework and they're putting it in centrally. The Auditor-General consistently finds that they understate the vulnerabilities. That means the ministers—it would be the same for the previous government and the same for this government—may well not be apprised of the full extent of vulnerabilities. We think that's a problem.

The committee has recommended two things. One is that the government consider implementing an assurance regime on agencies self-reporting on compliance so that the government is aware of the true situation in relation to public sector cybersecurity and that it's not disguised by agencies. We're not really saying that agencies are lying. There's a human optimism bias when you mark your own homework. You've got a bias with the exception of, I think, our national security agencies that are probably—as they said to us in a different forum—more conservative, and rightly so.

The second recommendation is that the Attorney-General's Department should value the fact that this is a core function and develop performance measures and put it out in lights in their annual performance statement and be accountable for it.

I thank the deputy chair and other committee members who participated in the inquiry. I thank contributors to the inquiry, the Auditor-General and especially the committee secretariat for their continued professionalism in supporting the work of the committee. I move:

That the House take note of report No. 497.

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

by leave—I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

The recent report of the Holmes royal commission highlights the many unintended consequences of the robodebt scheme and the regrettable impact the operations of the scheme had on individuals and their families, and I once again acknowledge and express my deep regret for the impacts of these unintended consequences on these individuals and their families. I do, however, completely reject the commission's adverse findings in the published report regarding my own role as Minister for Social Services between December 2014 and September 2015 as disproportionate, wrong, unsubstantiated and contradicted by clear evidence presented to the commission. As Minister for Social Services I played no role and had no responsibility in the operation or administration of the robodebt scheme. The scheme had not commenced operations when I served in the portfolio, let alone in December 2016 and January 2017, when the commission reported the unintended impacts of the scheme first became apparent. This was more than 12 months after I had left the portfolio.

Media reporting and commentary following the release of the commission's report, especially by government ministers, have falsely and disproportionately assigned an overwhelming responsibility for the conduct and operations of the robodebt scheme to my role as Minister for Social Services. This was simply not the case. In that context I particularly note the commission made no adverse findings in their published report in relation to my subsequent roles as Treasurer and Prime Minister, where I closed the scheme down during the operational phases of the scheme when the issues and unintended consequences first arose. Specifically I reject commission's findings regarding allowing cabinet to be misled, at page 106; providing untrue evidence to the commission, at page 102; and pressuring departmental officials, at page 107.

My obligation was to discharge my duties as a minister under section 64 of the Constitution. To this end a rigorous cabinet process was followed and satisfied for this measure, and as the Minister for Social Services I was constitutionally and legally entitled to assume the officers of the department had complied with their obligations under the Public Service Act to advise their respective ministers. As a result my obligations were fully and properly discharged. The contention by the commission that ministers should not be able to rely on the advice of their department and should therefore be required to relitigate the details of every submission their department prepares for their submission to cabinet not only is wrong but would make executive government unworkable, especially on technical matters that require legal and subject matter expertise. That is the point of having a department.

During the development phase of the robodebt scheme initiated by the Department of Human Services prior to my arrival as minister and then proposed to me in an executive minute I had instructed my department and the Department of Human Services to work together to resolve any outstanding issues identified in the brief, including outstanding legal issues, before finalising and bringing it forward as a new policy proposal for consideration by cabinet in the department's forthcoming portfolio budget submission. The final proposal contained in the NPP developed by the department provided clear and explicit advice from the department that legislation was not required to implement the scheme and the scheme was therefore lawful, conveyed in the due diligence checklist completed and authorised by the secretary of the Department of Social Services in accordance with their responsibilities under the Public Service Act. Such advice superseded all prior advice, including the earlier executive minute upon which the commission relied. The commission failed to understand the significance of this government process.

The Department of Social Services continued to maintain the scheme was lawful and did not require any legislation until the provision of the Solicitor-General's advice in 2019, five years after the cabinet submission was first considered. This was evidenced in three subsequent tranches of submissions to cabinet by subsequent ministers in relation to the scheme following my departure from the portfolio and the department's interaction with the Ombudsman's inquiry into the scheme in 2017. In a submission to cabinet in May 2020 the department advised cabinet that at no time prior to the provision of the Solicitor-General's advice to ministers had the department advised any ministers responsible for the scheme that the scheme was unlawful. Also, at no time did the department advise me as minister of the existence of formal internal legal advice prepared prior to my arrival in the portfolio regarding the scheme. I only became aware of the existence of this advice during the discovery phase of preparing my submission to the commission in 2022.

During the sworn evidence to the commission, the former deputy secretary of the Department of Social Services informed the commission that the existence and content of that information had been withheld from me as minister. As minister I had no reason to doubt the integrity, professionalism, subject knowledge, experience and legal expertise of the department secretaries and other senior officials who were involved in preparing the new policy proposal and the completion of the due-diligence checklist required under the cabinet process. I also note that the new policy proposal was one of 51 such separate new policy proposals in that portfolio budget submission and that in more than 30 of these cases the department had indicated the need for some type of legislation, including changes to the Social Services Act and other acts under the administration of the department. Given that the department had clearly indicated when legislation was required in relation to other new policy proposals in the portfolio budget submission, it is entirely reasonable for me to have formed the view that where they had explicitly noted that legislation was not required, including the robodebt scheme, this had been thoroughly interrogated by the department and earlier issues had been properly resolved as I had requested.

The commission's suggestion that it is reasonable that I would have or should have formed a contrary view to this at the time is not credible or reasonable. Such views were not being expressed by senior and experienced officials. In fact, they were advising the opposite. Such views were also not being expressed by others at the time who later became critical of the scheme. Following the announcement of the scheme in the budget, the opposition did not raise or express any concerns regarding the lawfulness of the scheme in 2015 and would later commit to continuing the scheme at both the 2016 and 2019 general elections, as evidenced in the detailed policy costings they submitted prior to both elections when the now Minister for Government Services was Leader of the Opposition. For the government to now condemn me for holding a view that they shared and sustained for more than three years after I left the portfolio is rank hypocrisy. Similarly, concerns were also not expressed at that time by social service advocates such as ACOSS. The commission's finding unfairly and retroactively applies a consensus on the understanding of the lawful status of the scheme that simply was not present or communicated at the time. This is clearly an unreasonable, untenable and false basis on which to make the serious allegation of allowing cabinet to be misled.

In relation to the commission's finding regarding untrue evidence, I also reject this as unsubstantiated, speculative, and wrong. In making their finding the commission has sought to reverse the onus of proof to establish their claim. I had stated in evidence what I understood to be true. The commission failed to disprove this and simply asserted it unilaterally as fact. In my evidence I stated that to my knowledge the use of income averaging to raise debts was an established practice of the Department of Human Services. This was a truthful statement on my part and was not a controversial position at the time. I was therefore not surprised when the department had included, in the final draft of the new policy proposal for submission to cabinet, the text 'There would be no change to the way PAYG income is assessed and debts calculated for income support purposes.' I accepted this as a true statement by the department and relied upon it.

In evidence supplied to the commission, I noted that the April 2017 report of the Ombudsman's inquiry contained the observation that 'the DHS has always had the process for averaging ATO data to calculate debts'. I also noted the sworn evidence provided by the former DHS secretary Mr Jackson, who noted his interactions with DHS colleagues, including 'Ms Golightly, Ms Harfield, Craig Storen and others who were principally involved in the program', that in relation to income averaging they said: 'This is how we've have done it always. It's been done this way for 30 years.' There was therefore a reasonable likelihood that such views would have been conveyed to me at the time.

I also noted in evidence departmental statistics on the sole use of income averaging to raise debts under Labor ministers Plibersek and Bowen and form and actual letters used by the department going back as far as 1994 that highlighted this practice. The evidence I provided to the commission was entirely truthful.

Finally, the commission's allegation that pressure was applied to department officials that prevented their giving frank advice is wrong, unsubstantiated and absurd. The uncontested fact that senior department executives withheld key information regarding the legality of the scheme from their ministers is inexcusable. As the commission itself notes, the department had already initiated the proposal before my arrival as minister. How could I have pressured officials into developing such proposals while serving in another portfolio? This highlights the absurdity of the commission's finding. The department had already taken the initiative and were the proponents of the scheme.

Also, the commission's suggestion that an orthodox policy setting of seeking to ensure integrity in welfare payments would be seen as intimidating to the department and its senior executive is both surprising and concerning. That is their job.

It was also the department who, of their own volition, advised ministers that more than $1.2 billion in preventable overpayments were being made each year. I was responding to departmental advice that highlighted significant integrity issues within the payment system. A minister would be derelict if they did not seek to act on such advice and consider proposals from the department, which I did.

The failure to advise ministers can also not be credibly blamed on the standard request to all departments, as the commissioner sought to do, before budget rounds to identify savings. The suggestion that senior department executives with decades of experience in the public sector were unable to exercise their obligations because they felt pressured by such a standard request is an insult to their competency and professionalism which I do not accept. As I noted in my evidence to the commission, had this information—that is, the internal legal advice—been shared with me when I was minister, it is highly unlikely this scheme would ever have been advanced.

Throughout my service in numerous portfolios over almost nine years I enjoyed positive, respectful and professional relationships with Public Service officials at all times, and there is no evidence before the commission to the contrary. While acknowledging the regrettable—again, the regrettable—unintended consequences and impacts of the scheme on individuals and families, I do however completely reject each of the adverse findings against me in the commission's report as unfounded and wrong.

The latest attacks on my character by the government in relation to this report is just a further attempt by the government following my departure from office to discredit me and my service to our country during one of the most difficult periods our country has faced since the Second World War. This campaign of political lynching has once again included the weaponisation of a quasi-legal process to launder the government's political vindictiveness. They need to move on. I say to the government: instead of trying to distract attention from their own failings by relentlessly pursuing these transparently partisan campaigns against me that they get on with the job they promised to do and are failing to do. At the last election, Labor claimed they could do a better job, yet Australians are now worse off, paying more for everything and earning less—the exact opposite of what Labor proposed. For my part, I will continue to defend my service and our government's record with dignity and an appreciation of the strong support I continue to receive from my colleagues, from so many Australians since the election and especially in my local electorate of Cook, of which I am pleased to continue to serve.

I rise in support of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, which is a really important piece of legislation that will help the Australian Public Service transition to the next era of its functionality and purpose. We all know on this side of the House how essential the role is that public service staff play. It would be remiss, at the outset of my remarks, not to thank our public servants for the excellent work that the vast majority of them undertake.

We are fortunate that we have some of Australia's best and brightest employed with the Australian Public Service, and our country is better for it. Indeed, many employees have chosen a career with the public service because of their deep belief in the value and work of the public service, and I know that we in this place are all beneficiaries of the tremendous contributions our public servants make. The APS will undergo a significant transition because of this vital piece of legislation, ensuring its ability to continue serving the Australian government, the parliament and, importantly, the Australian people.

The Public Service Amendment Bill contains several noteworthy elements, but it's also vital to emphasise the substantial research and consultation that went into its creation. The 2019 independent review of the Australian Public Service, known as the Thodey review, served as a major inspiration for the proposed changes. It was late last year that the Minister for the Public Service, Senator Gallagher, outlined the government's reform ideas in terms of four priority areas—those being: an APS that embodies integrity in everything it does; an APS that puts people and business at the centre of policy and services; an APS that is a model employer; and an APS that has the ability to do its job well. Over 11,000 people and organisations were involved in this extensive evaluation, which held more than 400 meetings, workshops and informational sessions. The provisions of this bill have been profoundly shaped by the knowledge gathered by this comprehensive consultation process.

The bill's consultation process was multifaceted, ensuring that a wide spectrum of viewpoints was considered. Between 3 May and 31 May this year, the proposed revisions were open to public comment. This required the publication of an overview paper, an exposure draft of the legislation and supporting documentation. The response was positive, and the public provided insightful feedback. Engagement with APS agencies, HR departments, academics, employee networks and employee representative organisations were major components of the consultation process. This open-minded strategy made it possible to fully comprehend the requirements, goals and issues of individuals who are directly involved in the APS. The contents of this bill have benefitted greatly from their knowledge and viewpoints.

It's important to mention that the measure implements several of the Thodey review's most important recommendations. For instance, the addition of the APS value of stewardship directly addresses recommendation 5, which advocates for the strengthening of the APS values and guiding principles. The bill affirms the permanent function of APS personnel, in supporting succeeding administrations, the parliament and the entire country. The APS Purpose Statement, as it is outlined in the proposed legislation, is in line with Thodey review recommendation 6, which emphasises the creation and embedding of an inspiring purpose and vision, to bring the APS together in serving the country. All agency leaders and staff will use this purpose statement as a unified framework to guide their decisions and actions. By allowing APS personnel to make decisions that are appropriate to their level of competence and categorisation, this solution reduces needless hierarchy and promotes effective and efficient governance.

Another important part of the bill is the implementation of the regular APS capacity reviews suggested by the Thodey review. This addresses recommendation 2a, which urges evaluations that are future focused to strengthen organisational capability and guarantee responsibility.

The APS will be better able to respond to challenges and provide the Australian people with efficient and effective services because of these reforms. Through this bill, the fundamental goals and principles of the APS will be strengthened, along with its capacities and competencies. Good governance, accountability and openness will be encouraged. The solution to long-lasting change lies in this bill. One of the fundamental objectives of this bill is to enhance the APS's core purpose and values. The new APS value of stewardship, which requires all APS employees to uphold their commitment to the long-term effects of their actions, does help to accomplish this. By integrating stewardship into the APS, we make sure that our Public Service places emphasis on meeting not just our society's current demands but also its long-term needs for capacity-building, institutional knowledge and support of the public interest. This dedication to stewardship will guarantee that public administration is carried out in a sustainable and responsible manner.

This bill also creates an essential foundation to support the APS's mission and ideals. It gives the Secretaries Board the authority to create a single, cohesive APS purpose statement that would act as a standard for all agency leaders and staff. We can make sure that this purpose statement is still applicable and in line with how our society is changing by examining it frequently. As a result, the APS will be able to continuously uphold and promote its values and employment standards, promoting an environment that prioritises excellence and public service.

The bill also emphasises the apolitical nature of the APS, preserving its integrity and independence. By clarifying and reinforcing act provisions, it emphasises the idea that ministers cannot direct agency heads on specific APS employment decisions. The Public Service will work impartially and make choices in the best interests of Australians because of this reaffirmation of the APS's apolitical attitude. This measure also gives priority to enhancing the APS's capacity and knowledge.

The Australian Taxation Office, Services Australia and each department of state will also undergo frequent, public independent reviews of their capabilities. These evaluations will identify the organisation's areas of strength and need for improvement. The result, together with action plans, will be made public. The APS will become more efficient in providing services and addressing the changing demands of the Australian public thanks to this dedication to self-evaluation and development.

The bill also requires the Secretaries Board to commission periodical long-term insights reports. The APS can successfully manage the difficulties of the future by increasing confidence in its knowledge and understanding, which will eventually benefit us all. The measure also encourages accountability, transparency and good governance within the APS. The results of the APS employee census for the agencies must be made public, together with action plans to deal with the findings. This dedication to openness promotes a culture of continual improvement within agencies, motivating staff members and boosting the APS's overall effectiveness. Unnecessary hierarchy is removed, and APS personnel are given the freedom to contribute to the fullest extent possible by being allowed to make decisions that are in line with their knowledge and authority.

It should be noted that the Public Service Amendment Bill is a significant law that opens the door to genuine transformation inside the Public Service. This bill enables the APS to better serve the Australian government, the parliament and Australians by strengthening the core purpose and values, expanding its capabilities and expertise and maintaining good governance, accountability and transparency. This culture is really important, I think, as the parliament has recently seen, for us to foster in our Australian Public Service.

In the context of this amendment being debated, I should also acknowledge the huge toll taken that we've witnessed through the recent robodebt royal commission. The Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten, summed up this situation best when he said:

There was no sugar coating the cost of Robodebt—the financial cost, the reputational cost to government, but most of all, the human cost.

We now know that the former coalition government effectively treated vulnerable Australians as criminals at best or as second-class citizens at worst. We know that robodebt unlawfully raised $1.8 billion of debt against approximately 435,000 vulnerable Australians. Instead of being provided with the great Australian safety net in their time of need—a safety net that many of them contributed to funding over the course of their working lives—they were punished.

It is also important to note that the royal commission was an independent process that was overseen by Commissioner Holmes. Justice Murphy, the judge presiding over the case, approved the largest class action settlement in Australian history. He described the scheme as a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure in public administration'. It was a shameful chapter in a shameful period in the history of this country and a shameful example of governance.

Even more shameful than what we witnessed was that, instead of acknowledging the error of their ways, those opposite, when in government, effectively misled the Australian public and gaslit people: 'Nothing to see here!' Some of the most vulnerable members of our communities were made to feel humiliated, like criminals, and then the pain that they had experienced was denied.

We know that the treatment of the most vulnerable Australians that were targeted by this scheme resulted in some heartbreaking consequences. In the royal commission's final report, Commissioner Holmes stated:

Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the Scheme's lack of legal foundation coming to light.

…   …   …

The ill-effects of the Scheme were varied, extensive, devastating and continuing.

…   …   …

At the least, I am confident that the Commission has served the purpose of bringing into the open an extraordinary saga, illustrating a myriad of ways that things can go wrong through venality, incompetence and cowardice.

We have now seen that the commissioner has referred some individuals to various regulatory agencies. As a government, we have also appointed an independent reviewer to determine whether public servants who are subject to adverse findings have breached the APS Code of Conduct. It is important to our government that these most recent revelations brought about by this botched handling of the scheme do not result in an insular public service. We cannot encourage a public service that shirks the responsibility of providing frank and fearless advice to government due to any potential ramifications, either real or perceived. That's why clarifying section 19 of the act by providing that ministers must not direct agency heads on individual employment matters of the APS is so important.

The former Liberal coalition government's botched handling of this whole moment in our history—the robodebt debacle—highlights the need for comprehensive reforms within the Public Service so that we do have accountability, transparency and fairness in government practices. That's what Australians expect. It should be no surprise that our government, which was elected on a platform of integrity and rebuilding trust in institutions of government, has a reform agenda that is squarely focused on improving integrity.

This bill is an essential step towards regaining public trust in the Australian Public Service and all government operations and institutions by including provisions to address the shortcomings of the robodebt scheme and to make sure it doesn't happen again in the future. We aim to solve these flaws by encouraging greater supervision, better governance and improved procedures for Australians to make complaints about ineffective government.

This bill introduces a new APS value of stewardship, underlining the APS's responsibilities in facilitating institutional learnings, strengthening capacities and promoting the public's interest now and in the future. We are putting forth this bill to make sure that we have an Australian Public Service that is able to act in the best interests of all Australians and so that we do not see the shameful chapter that was presided over by the previous government repeated. Australians deserve so much better, and under our government they're going to get it.

I rise to contribute to the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 debate, a bill that will amend the Public Service Act 1999 and form part of the Albanese Labor government's broader Australian Public Service reform agenda. I note that many members before me have explained to the House the detail of this bill and what it means. But I want to take a moment to discuss what the Australian Public Service, the APS, really is and what it means to our communities, including mine in the Illawarra.

Over the past decade, we have seen an intentional and deliberate character assassination of the Australian Public Service. This attack has undermined the good work that our APS undertakes every day. On any given day millions of Australians interact with the APS, such as: a small-business owner contacting business.gov.au to find a business adviser; a university student engaging with the National Archives; new parents trying to sort out their parental leave; a high school student applying for their very first tax file number; a pensioner inquiring about their pension to Services Australia; jobseekers and pensioners reporting income, from their casual work, through Services Australia; a patient accessing Medicare payments for medical assistance through Medicare; a local manufacturer being supported by AusIndustry and Austrade to find new markets for their products.

Interaction with the APS occurs at all points in our lives, from the cradle to the grave, and is as diverse as the people who interact with it. Both businesses and the community want a system that works, that they can have confidence in, regardless of who sits on the Treasury benches. Every Australian wants to be treated with dignity, respect and fairness, especially in dealing with their government and APS.

I have worked closely with the APS for over 30 years in my Illawarra community. In that time together we have had to work closely to deliver outcomes in some really complex cases, cases where you are trying to find solutions that marry up the square peg and the round hole. Supporting me in doing that are the many great public servants I have worked with, people who are the best and brightest at public administration. They are people who care about their fellow Australians. Ultimately, that is why we arrive at work every day. They are people who have the corporate memory to respectfully tell you why something may or may not work or what consequential problem a course of action might result in.

I want to give a special shout-out to one outstanding member of the Public Service who has since retired: Byron Jones from my electorate. Byron was our Parliamentary Liaison Officer with Centrelink, many years ago, during my employment with my predecessor and friend Sharon Bird. He has since retired. There was no problem too complex for Byron to sink his teeth into, and we presented him with a lot of problems—pensions, study assistance, family tax benefits and income support—so many problems that were complex and distressing for our most vulnerable constituents. Byron would contact different sections of the department, all over the country, to hunt down a solution for them. He kept us up to date with the options he was looking at and possible solutions to our constituents' problems. We knew with absolute confidence that if Byron said it couldn't be fixed he had tried everything.

During the time we had Byron as our Parliamentary Liaison Officer we sent very few representations to the minister—solely due to his great work. Byron cared deeply about people and he cared about the Public Service. He epitomised what a public servant should aspire to.

During the last decade the coalition diminished the role of the Public Service, relying excessively on contractors and consultants and outsourcing policy. Any member needs to just open a newspaper or turn on the TV news, over recent weeks, to see what the consequence of this policy approach has been. This action has hollowed out the Australian Public Service, and once sand has been drained out of the bottle it is a very long and slow process to get it back in. Despite that challenge, it is what we must do and it is what this bill seeks to do. The bill strengthens the APS's core purpose values, especially with the establishment of the new APS value of stewardship. Stewardship will be defined as:

The APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future, by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does.

The Albanese government is committed to rebuilding the APS into a trusted, apolitical and highly valued national institution. In any discussion of APS reform, special consideration needs to be made for the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The management and culture of the scheme that was allowed to develop under the previous Liberal government cannot continue. As members of parliament we see on a daily basis what is occurring at the coalface of this scheme, which is so vital to the fabric of society. The numbers speak for themselves: between June 2022 and April 2023 there were 21,826 cases referred to the minister's office by parliamentarians from across the chamber who needed the minister's help to help solve complex problems that were not being resolved by the relevant agencies. These include: 8,416 cases relating to Services Australia; 12,375 cases relating the NDIS; 1,035 cases relating to the NDIS quality and safeguards commission. As I am sure most members in this place would agree, when constituents contact us with matters regarding the NDIS and Services Australia, they are never the quick and easy-fix problems. They are complex and often long-running, where someone has been shunted off into the too-hard basket, and they involve the most vulnerable people in our communities.

Over the past 12 months I have been directly dealing with two of those cases that were put into the too-hard basket. One case sees the family of a former NDIS recipient who passed away having to shower at the homes of families and friends or—even worse—forced to bathe with a bucket and garden hose following a bureaucratic dispute with the NDIS over a bathroom modification for the NDIS recipient which was halted when the recipient passed away. The family has been in limbo ever since. The other case is of an NDIS recipient with high-level disability support needs who has been stripped of appropriate medical care for his seizures for no reason. The medical advice from his doctors and from his support provider has been at worst ignored or at best overlooked, despite many enquiries and representations. His parents are in their 80s. They are terrified about what will happen to their son should anything happen to them. Luckily, we are very fortunate that he is in good care with a great provider.

Both of these cases are complex, and I thank the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Minister Shorten, and his amazing team for their hours and hours of work and support in trying to achieve a positive outcome. These distressed and vulnerable families should not have to fight so hard. They should not have to seek ministerial intervention to get basic care and support. We need to make sure that the staff in our Public Service actually care about our most vulnerable people, and ensure that they get the care and support that they need. I note that the minister and the government are getting the NDIS back on track by improving outcomes for participants and reforming the agency which delivers the scheme, ensuring every dollar goes to NDIS participants.

Over the past few years I have been very concerned about the culture that the previous Liberal government allowed to develop within the NDIS and its managing agencies. My concerns grew last month when I read a series of articles published in the Saturday Paper by Rick Morton on 3 and 10 June. The articles, titled 'NDIS regulator in chaos' and 'Keeping up appearances', tell the story of screaming matches between senior staff and legal officers in front of other employees, and a wheelchair user being left in an emergency stairwell during a genuine emergency evacuation. Of more concern, Mr Morton goes on to report that the first order of business for the new Commissioner of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguards Commission was the commissioning of a new executive office in Paramatta—not at the organisation's head office in Penrith. This was followed up by engaging consultants to the tune of $1.7 million to design a strategic future for the authority. It worries me greatly that these decisions are being made while there is such a significant case load demand and the need to be thorough given the complexities of this demand.

In the most recent federal budget, the Albanese Labor government invested over $140 million into the NDIS Commission to get the commission back on track. The government expects the commission to ensure that every single dollar of this precious investment is spent on protecting NDIS participants. I am an advocate for the NDIS. It is a scheme that works well and is in fact life-changing for hundreds and thousands of Australians who have a disability. However, at this time the scheme is facing challenges that threaten the quality of the services offered to NDIS participants in the long term. I know the government is determined to take responsibility for effective reform, fraud, often poor-quality planning, and an agency that is now finding its way under new leadership, including the new CEO, Rebecca Falkingham, and new chair, Kurt Fearnley. However, as part of the Australian Public Service reform agenda, the NDIS and its agencies will need a special path of reform.

I acknowledge the second reading amendment makes reference to the robodebt royal commission report. When talking about reform of the Australian Public Service, we cannot ignore the failure that was the robodebt income compliance program. Justice Murphy, the judge who presided over the class action that preceded the royal commission, described this game as a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure in public administration'. The royal commission's 46 days of public hearings and testimony of more than 100 witnesses was both heartbreaking and infuriating. I am in no doubt that every new APS and university policy and public administration graduate in the future will be extensively educated in what robodebt was; the details of how this cruel and illegal scheme was allowed to target 435,000 Australians who rely on the social safety net but were instead targeted by their own government; and the role all of us need to play, including the APS, in building a fair and egalitarian society, ensuring that the mistakes of robodebt are never made again.

The challenges that face the government and the APS are vast and complex, and they will not be fixed overnight, but giving up is not an option. Too many people are relying on us. I know within the NDIS and the broader APS we have many dedicated people who are ready to embrace the challenges that we are facing and drive the change we need to build the institutional knowledge, the apolitical character, the accountability and the transparency that the Australian Public Service was known for the world over.

This legislation, the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, begins the process of rebuilding trust and confidence in public servants and the information, service and advice that they provide. For too long since governments of all persuasions began a process of outsourcing government services to the private sector, there has been a notable decline in the services provided and in the culture and self esteem of our Public Service workforce. Claims that the private sector can provide public services cheaper and better do not always stack up, and that is becoming increasingly apparent. One of the most glaring examples of that comes to mind when almost each day I hear someone say to me, 'Please bring back the CES, the old Commonwealth Employment Service.' There are many other examples, of course, that I can point to, where the projected savings from outsourcing or privatisation are not achieved when all other factors and costs are taken into account.

However, financial savings and inferior service are only part of the problem. A more serious problem with outsourcing is the security of confidential information, as we are seeing now with several examples of data breaches. As we are also seeing right now with the PwC scandal, the risks of corruption or leaking of confidential information are much higher and much more difficult to prevent when the private sector is engaged and in possession of critical information.

The issue of security particularly concerns me. I was recently alerted to the Peever report, commissioned by the Morrison government, into the defence innovation system. It was the latest of several reviews conducted over recent years into the operations and future of the Defence Science and Technology Group, otherwise known as DSTG. The DSTG, throughout its long history, has been one of Australia's most capable and respected research institutions. Working in collaboration with our defence department and similar research centres within Australian defence partners, the DSTG has played a crucial role in defence weaponry development and national security. Over the years, some of our nation's best scientists have worked there. The Peever report, when finally released earlier this year, was so highly redacted as to make its release worthless. Whether it recommended that Australia follow the path of both the US and the UK, where, I understand, similar organisations to the DSTG now outsource much of their research, I don't know. However, I'd be very concerned if that was the case, and I urge the Deputy Prime Minister—who, as the Minister for Defence, has oversight over the DSTG and to whom I wrote about this matter earlier this year—to ensure that the DSTG remains Australia's leading defence research public institution. I also take this opportunity to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his response to my letter, in which he, too, refers to the DSTG as 'a national jewel contributing countless world-leading innovative defence capabilities'.

The outsourcing of skills training from the public TAFE organisation and into private training providers also saw billions of dollars wasted through rorts and unfinished or worthless training certificates. The reality is that, as the name 'Public Service' itself implies, government-paid workers are there to provide a service. They are public servants who are there to provide public service, unlike within the private sector, where entities are there, essentially, to make a profit. Last week I visited the Modbury Centrelink offices and spoke to Centrelink, Medicare and NDIS staff who work there. Their commitment, professionalism and compassion, particularly for some of our community's most vulnerable people, is indeed commendable. They deal with matters sensitively and always with an objective to resolve any point of difference and to assist people with their needs. I thank and commend the team at the Modbury Centrelink offices for the work they do and for their focus on service.

This legislation essentially responds in large part to the Thodey review, which others have referred to. It may not pick up all the recommendations, but the recommendations that we are pursuing with this legislation essentially arise from that review. They are recommendations that were widely consulted upon. And yes, maybe they don't meet everyone's expectations, but they were widely consulted on and generally were put together after that consultation period. They go directly to ensuring good governance, accountability and transparency. That is, in my view, what the Public Service would like to see and what the public expects of the Public Service: accountability and transparency. Of course reviews will be carried out from time to time to ensure that they meet those very objectives that we talk about. One of the important aspects of all of this is also that government ministers will not have direct influence on some of the decision-making that might have occurred in the past, and that is also a good thing, because public servants are expected to be apolitical.

I close with these remarks. For decades now the Public Service of this country has served this country. Incredible expertise has been built up through the people who work in Australia's Public Service, at both the federal and the state level. One of my disappointments is how often I've been told that the expertise is being lost, that those years of experience, where people know how to deal with issues, has been lost because of outsourcing and the like. It is good to see that this government understands and values our Public Service and is in the process of rebuilding it so that we can all have confidence in the advice it provides to government and in the services it provides to the Australian people.

I want to thank my colleague the member for Makin for so eloquently outlining the important role the Public Service has in our society. Any strong democracy has a strong public service, and unfortunately our Public Service has been undermined by successive years of cuts and devaluation of their expertise.

However, during the last federal election there was an announcement by the Labor Party. It got little traction—it didn't get the front page of the papers or make the news bulletins—but that announcement was critical. It was fundamental to ensuring that our democracy, our parliament and our ministers continue to do the good work they do and that they are accountable to the public. That announcement was about reform to our Australian Public Service. I would like to take a moment to read that announcement because many parts of it are important for us all to take note of. It was made in March 2022, long before the scandals that we now know of. The announcement reads:

Eight long years of cuts and outsourcing by the Coalition has undermined the capacity and capability of the Australian Public Service (APS).

APS employees have had their wages, conditions and job security attacked by a government that doesn't value or respect the role that the APS and its employees play in delivering public services to the Australian people.

At the same time the Coalition has wasted precious public money on contractors, consultants and labour hire firms for work that could have been done more effectively and cost-efficiently by public servants.

I want to break down that announcement because, whilst at the time it was made there was little attention paid to it, I think it was a prescient announcement that we all appreciate now given everything that is unfolding. Between 2013 and 2021—basically the entirety of the coalition government's time in power—the number of Public Service jobs decreased by more than 7,200, which is a 4.4 per cent reduction in the workforce. Given the increasing complexity of their work and the fact we are demanding more from our Public Service, and given what they were able to do during COVID when they rapidly turned to support our society and implement really difficult changes like JobKeeper and a mass vaccine and immunisation program—given all that was thrown at the Public Service during that time and the dramatic cuts, it is no wonder that we then saw very real outcomes consequences. What were the impacts? I want to name just three, but there were many more. Let's go through them: immigration, visa processing and passports.

When we got into government there was such a delay in visa processing, a backlog of one million visas. These are student visas key to our economy—it is the third-largest export. There are visa delays thanks to the cuts from those opposite. These are visas for skilled workers, and we saw the consequences of that—I felt them acutely in my electorate of Reid—where many businesses were complaining to me about their inability to get skilled workers into Australia in areas of critical shortage because the visas they had put through months previously were still being looked through and had not been processed yet. They're the consequences of cuts to our immigration system.

Many Australians were surprised to find out about the delay in the issuing of passports, which should be, by all accounts, a tick-and-flick, rubberstamp, easy-peasy exercise—we've got your info; all we need to do is print your passport for you. Australians were facing delays of months and months to get passports—critical documents—in order for them to travel overseas to see sick family members or to attend to key employment opportunities. Passports! Who would have thought that there would be a delay in the issuing of passports? But there was. Last year alone, in my office, we received more than 110 inquiries about delayed passports—and that's just in one electorate. These were people who were desperate to get overseas to see loved ones. We had really sad situations where people had to rush home to see dying parents or had to bring a sick child into the country, and yet there were delays in processing their passports. Again, it was because of the failure of those opposite to make sure that the Public Service had adequate staffing.

Another key area where they failed was the rollout of the NDIS. This is an area that needs highly skilled and highly trained experts to understand the situation of the person with the disability. From so many families in my electorate, I heard time and time again that every time their disability package with NDIS came up for renewal, they had to speak to someone different, someone who didn't have an understanding of their child's disability, someone who didn't have an understanding of the system, and, time and time again, they had to go through the onerous process of having to justify the disability and explain the situation to the person on the phone. They told me about the inhumane way that they were being treated. This is because of cuts and outsourcing of this department. Currently, over a quarter of the NDIA's workforce is from labour hire. That means that they are not permanent staff. They are staff who are there on a temporary basis without the expertise and the understanding to be able to support these families and these people with a disability. Again, it is another failure from those opposite.

I want to take us to another community that I would think those opposite would be incredibly supportive of. I would think that those opposite who wrap themselves in the Australian flag and want to always be paying tribute to our defence forces would want to make sure that our veterans are looked after. But, again, it was their failure to staff the Department of Veterans' Affairs that has resulted in a backlog of 60,000 veterans still waiting for compensation claims to be reviewed. Something that the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Andrew Gee, admitted to—and I give him a lot of respect for this—were the challenges within that department. He said that the department was struggling under limited staffing and a system that was 'crying out for reform'. So, whilst you loved to make announcements about our defence forces and you loved standing next to our men and women in uniform, why were you refusing to adequately staff the Department of Veterans' Affairs so that those claims could be processed and those veterans and families could receive the money that they desperately needed? It is a shame that they've had to go through this; it's a shame that they've had to go through a royal commission into veteran suicide. This could have been fixed if those opposite had ensured adequate staffing in that department—and they refused.

We announced an investment of $64.1 million in the 2023-24 budget to retain over 480 Department of Veterans' Affairs staff to ensure we deliver frontline services to veterans and families. We don't just stand next to our men and women in uniform to make press announcements; we actually care about them. We are committed to supporting them. That is why are making sure that staff will be at the other end of that line when our veterans call through to the department needing urgent help.

In a speech to the Public Service last year, Katy Gallagher, the Minister for the Public Service, said:

… the public service is one of the critical pillars of political integrity. It must be empowered to be honest and truly independent. To defend legality and due process. And to deliver advice that the government of the day might not want to hear just as loudly as the advice that we do.

That is a very important paragraph for all of us to think about, because the other key challenge that has occurred under the watch of those opposite is the politicisation of our Public Service, such that they are not providing frank and fearless advice, that they are not stepping up to ministers and saying that that policy is illegal and immoral. We saw that most acutely with robodebt. The robodebt scandal is a shameful, shameful chapter in our country's history. I hope it is something that we in this House all learn from. It is shameful that it occurred, it is shameful that it took so long for people to step up and speak out, and it is shameful to the individuals whose lives were impacted by this. That is what happens when you cut the Public Service, devalue their expertise and politicise the Public Service. What does that all combine to do? It undermines our democracy. What are we doing to change that?

This bill is a very important bill. It is about public sector reform. It is about ensuring that we strengthen the Public Service so that it doesn't have to suffer deaths by a thousand cuts like it didn't under the former coalition government. This is a bill that responds to the 2019 Thodey review, the independent review of the Public Service, and he has a few key priority areas. Firstly, it works to strengthen the core purpose and values of the APS to make an APS that acts with integrity in everything that it does in a unified way across the entire Public Service. Secondly, it works to support good governance, accountability and transparency. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it works to build the capability and expertise of the Australian Public Service. This is core business for our government.

I want to take a moment to thank my Senate colleague Deb O'Neill for the extraordinary work that she has done, along with other senators, to uncover the scandal that unfolded from PwC. Again, this is something that happens when you outsource much of your policy work. Last year alone, we spent $3.6 billion on consultants and contractors. What an incredible waste given what we could have done, which was lift up the Public Service. I want to note that we have good public servants in this country. Robodebt was a scandal. Lots of people failed to step up and speak up but not Colleen Taylor. She was a Centrelink frontline worker who took her concerns to the very top. We all owe her a debt of gratitude.

I firstly want to start by acknowledging our hardworking public servants in the Australian Public Service, as did the member for Reid and so many other member of this parliament here today when speaking about the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. Today we are reforming the Australian Public Service and today we are strengthening the Australian Public Service. This is something the Albanese Labor government committed to during the 2022 federal election. Not only that, it's something we are now delivering on. It's not only during the election that this has occurred. Our office, the office of Robertson, continues to talk with constituents right across the electorate, from Niagara Park to the Hawkesbury River bridge all the way out to Gunderman and Spencer in our rural areas, to people who want their Public Service, the Australian Public Service, to be strong, to be dependable, to be reliable, to be there for them when they need them and to provide that fearless and frank advice, that apolitical advice, to the government of the day so that informed decisions can be made that not just will benefit the Central Coast but will benefit the wider community right across this country.

This bill will amend the Public Service Act 1999 to contribute to the Albanese Labor government's agenda of reforming the Australian Public Service. What Australians experienced in particular over the last decade, the last 10 long years under that tired old coalition government, is that the Liberal Party ripped the guts out of the Australian Public Service, and that is shameful. The Liberal Party weakened and they diminished the role of the Australian Public Service, and therefore they relied heavily on private contractors and private consultants, outsourcing the policy and legislation people rely on in this country, people depend on in this country, for the services we all know and we all enjoy. They created a shadow public service costing billions to hardworking decent Australians.

I know the member for Reid just went through a few examples of that failure, and I too will go through some examples of what happens when you devalue and you diminish the Public Service in its entirety—when you rip the guts out of it, as I said before. If we look at our department of immigration, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the provision of passports, where people were desperate to go overseas not just for holidays but to see family and to see friends after a long period in lockdown and in isolation, we saw significant blowouts in wait times all because the former government failed to invest in the Public Service.

Let's now look at the NDIS. We can see, and I see today in my clinical practice, that when you again devalue a public service and the public servants that work within a department, patients come into the emergency department because they can't get the care they need and there's nowhere else for them to go. That's not on. That's not what happens in Australia. That's one of the reasons we need to be strengthening the Australian Public Service.

Then there are our veterans. Many in this chamber would know the electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast has one of the highest proportions of veterans right across the country, from all conflicts and all policing actions. I pay tribute to those Defence Force personnel and veterans here today. But the fact of the matter is that, because the Public Service was, again, devalued and diminished by the former Liberal government, we saw our men and women in uniform and we saw our veteran community suffer and we saw primary claims blow out all because of a previous government that did not value its Public Service.

Finally, we had robodebt, the income compliance program under the former coalition government. This, out of the entire list that I've just given, I believe is one of the most shameful pieces of history in this country. It began operating as a pilot program in early 2015 and progressed through various iterations until it was paused in November 2019 and ultimately scrapped. It unlawfully raised $1.8 billion of debt against approximately 435,000 vulnerable Australians. Under the scheme, some Centrelink debts were calculated using averaged Australian Taxation Office income information. Averaging was applied where discrepancies between income that recipients had reported to Services Australia and income data from the ATO were not explained. In November 2019 Services Australia stopped the use of averaging Australian Taxation Office income data as the sole basis for raising debts. On the day that ministers and senior public servants would have had to have given evidence in the trial of the class action, the Commonwealth finally admitted it had no legal basis to raise the debts. Justice Murphy, the judge presiding over the case, approved the largest class action settlement in Australian history, and he described the scheme as a shameful chapter and a massive failure of public administration.

The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was an election commitment of the Albanese Labor government, and the Albanese government established the royal commission on 25 August 2022. Commissioner Holmes delivered the final report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme to the Governor-General on 7 July 2023. After receiving the report, the Governor-General then presented it to the Attorney-General, and the report was then tabled to facilitate its public release. The royal commission was an independent process that was overseen by Commissioner Holmes, and now we will take time to consider those recommendations in the final report. But I do note that at times the evidence given throughout the royal commission was incredibly disturbing, especially with regard to former ministers that implemented and oversaw the scheme over 4½ years. This is one of the failures that occur when you do not value your Public Service.

Moving on with this bill, the legislative changes that are part of the journey and part of the pathway to rebuild the Australian Public Service, the majority of the amendments were recommendations of the 2019 Independent Review of the Australian Public Service or go to its intent. Furthermore, the Labor Party is the party of consultation. We are the party that listens to people to create better policy that will have the most benefit for the most people. I know people on this side of the chamber wholeheartedly agree with that statement, and that's what we're doing here. The Albanese government has consulted employees, representative groups, agencies, experts, the public and interested parties.

Let's look at what this bill actually does. It will not only strengthen the Australian Public Service's core purpose and values but build the capability and expertise of the APS and, most importantly, support good governance, good accountability and transparency. So let's dive in a bit deeper as to how we are going to strengthen the Public Service's core purpose and values. This bill will introduce amendments to add a new APS value of stewardship that all Public Service employees must uphold. Stewardship will be defined as:

The APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future, by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does.

Moreover, it will require the secretaries board to oversee the development of a single unifying APS purpose statement and review it once every five years. In addition, it will require all agency heads to uphold and promote the new APS Purpose Statement in addition to the APS Values and APS Employment Principles. It will also clarify and strengthen provisions in the act to make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions, and this will reaffirm the public service's apolitical nature.

Earlier I was saying that this bill will build the capacity and expertise of the APS. Specifically, this bill will introduce amendments to make regular independent and transparent capability reviews, a five yearly requirement for each department of state, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. Capability reviews will assess organisational strengths. They will assess areas for development with reports and action plans, responding to findings required to be publicly released.

Moreover, the bill will introduce amendments to require a secretaries board to commission regular long-term insights reports to explore mid-term and long-term trends, risks and opportunities facing Australia. These reports will ensure that the APS can build trust in its expertise and understanding of crosscutting issues that matter to all Australians.

Let's move on to how this bill will support good governance, how it will support accountability and, importantly, how it will support transparency. The bill will introduce amendments to require publication of agencies' APS census results and an action plan that responds to results. This will foster a culture of transparency and accountability for continuous improvement within agencies.

Additionally, it will require agency heads to implement measures to enable decisions to be made by employees at the lowest appropriate classification for those decisions. What this will do and what this will ensure is that decision-making is not raised to a higher level than is necessary, and that will reduce unnecessary hierarchy, empowering the Public Service employees.

What this bill does is really begin and strengthen the journey to rebuild the Australian Public Service after all those years of Liberal Party and National Party neglect. I have gone through countless examples of what happens when you devalue your public service.

I want to take a moment, as I did at the start of this speech, to thank all the public servants who are here with us in Parliament House in the nation's capital today but also in my home electorate of Robertson. The work that you do for our community is valued, and we thank you every day for that work.

The list of those failures that I mentioned before, alongside this bill, is to not only strengthen the APS but to make sure that we've got the NDIS on the right track, strengthening that disability support for some of our most vulnerable Australians; making sure that we are committing funding to support the staff in our immigration services to process visas and passports; and, in our veterans' affairs space with Minister Keogh—which, as you all know, is close to my heart—making sure that we are supporting the public servants in the Department of Veterans' Affairs so that we continue to process those primary claims that our veterans so heavily rely on, because they have made the choice often, or as part of national service, to protect our most vulnerable and to protect Australian society. For that, we will be forever grateful. So, once again, this bill begins the journey to rebuild the Australian Public Service after many years of neglect.

Having lived and worked in the Territory my entire life, often working within or adjacent to the public services at the Northern Territory and Commonwealth government levels, I can say that the Public Service and public servants generally contribute a great deal to the functioning of our country. While it falls to the elected government to set the agenda, policy direction and framework for the bureaucracy to move towards, it is up to the Public Service to deliver on such agendas. The day-to-day operation of our government is a huge responsibility. It is the responsibility of tens of thousands of Australians around the nation.

The institution of the Public Service in a Westminster democracy is the essential cog which keeps the machinery of government running. The Public Service assesses our tax forms, delivers our social security payments, processes and assesses visas, and develops and implements policies stretching across a broad range of issues—from national security to Indigenous Australians, from agriculture to the environment. Living and working in the Territory, I can say that when the Public Service is working well and when it is independent, innovative and effective, communities prosper. When the Public Service is weak, when it does not attract the right minds, and when it is under-resourced, communities suffer.

Everyone in this place knows the Liberals and Nationals say they don't like big governments. That sentiment doesn't necessarily fit with the lived experience when it comes to what actually happened under the most recent iterations of the coalition government. But, putting that to one side, what many Australians may be surprised to know is how much the coalition like a weak and buttoned-down Public Service when they were in government—or perhaps less so now that the robodebt royal commission report is in. For almost a decade the coalition undertook a continuous and structural weakening of the Public Service. They contracted out vital policy work, spending billions of dollars in contracts with private companies, taking the public out of the Public Service. They created an environment of fear and subservience, an environment in which public servants clearly didn't feel comfortable giving frank and fearless advice. This was because they didn't want sound policy development or to have to think too hard about outcomes; they wanted a yes minister and they wanted media releases. What the Liberals and Nationals appear not to understand is that a strong and capable public service is the only way in which to deliver real and tangible change on the ground. This is particularly true in areas of market failure, and particularly where economies of scale face challenges.

One of the perfect examples of this policy trainwreck is known as the Community Development Program. I will go to the Northern Territory, and in particular my electorate of Lingiari. The Community Development Program, a Work for the Dole scheme, can be traced back to the deliberate decision by the Howard government as part of the intervention to scrap the robust and effective remote employment program we once had, which was called CDEP. CDEP was an employment program, not a welfare program. It had been developed through decades of experience and input from masterful thinkers like Nugget Coombs. The CDEP model involved funding being allocated directly to local community employers, not through the carpetbagger intermediary agencies which are currently making a fortune out of the existing regime.

The intervention in the Northern Territory delivered an outcome which transitioned Aboriginal people in remote Northern Territory communities from modest employment into total welfare dependency. The local employers under CDEP had flexibility to use other funding sources to top up hours and wages, and people regarded CDEP jobs as real jobs. The rationale declared at the time of the intervention for why CDEP had to be scrapped was that all those workers needed to be income managed. It was an enforcement and compliance measure just like robodebt. The old Community Development Employment Program found the balance of respecting individual communities' cultural and social obligations while also delivering pathways for meaningful employment. Importantly, it was also able to stimulate local economies on the ground in those communities which were providing opportunities for individuals in those communities to generate income outside of government funding. There was a reliance not on government but on creating enterprises and, therefore, sharing that wealth within communities and providing more jobs for younger people in those communities. It was not a perfect program, but it was by and large seen as delivering outcomes for people and communities.

The big winners now are contractors to whom the Commonwealth bureaucracy outsources the task of case-managing individual welfare recipients—something which was not necessary where people were directly employed by a local employer. These lucrative businesses are based in New South Wales, Queensland or wherever—far away from where the program is on the ground in Northern Territory remote communities. One of these contractors was RISE Ventures. They won big at a time when their chair was prominent coalition fellow traveller Warren Mundine. Former Minister for Indigenous Australians Nigel Scullion awarded the company many CDP contracts worth millions, and Mr Mundine had still not resigned when he was preselected as a coalition candidate for the 2019 federal election. The company continues to make millions off the back of Aboriginal unemployment.

In a recent visit around my electorate I've spent the last four weeks going into a lot of the communities, but to one community in central Australia in particular—the community of Mutitjulu. The participants and other community members were scathing, in the meetings that I had with them, about the absence of meaningful employment outcomes for their people. They are sick of the politicisation, because there is nobody working with them to try to get the jobs happening. A lot of the old Anangu, or the old Aboriginal elders out there, want their young people employed. They are really concerned about their young people.

I think CDP and the present program that has been in place for the last 15 years, and the privatisation of public service policy implementation relating to the management of unemployed people out bush, have been disastrous, particularly for the communities in the Northern Territory. The Liberals and the Nationals—and I know that people don't want to hear this—weakened the Public Service by contracting vast swathes of work out to the private sector, particularly in the Northern Territory. Then they ran roughshod over policy thinkers with decades of experience, in favour of ideological and political sugar hits. I have many good friends in the Commonwealth Public Service, people with policy brains who were employed under the previous government, who wanted to advise ministers about different ways of working, and who within 24 hours of telling them that were told to pack up their desks and go to another department, and were shovelled out. There are many people who come into the Indigenous Affairs portfolio in particular—we've got to stop this handballing of the political football and the argy-bargy that often happen in this place.

I think this amendment bill from our government is important in that we do need a strong Public Service. We have to rebuild, particularly in the Northern Territory. CDP is just one example of how the weakening of that Public Service through the elevation of political decision-making over policy-based approaches critically and negatively impacts everyday Australians. It comes from the same set of policy values which delivered robodebt.

Another example of the dangers and consequences of weakening our Public Service is robodebt. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme has highlighted a number of concerning outcomes which come from the Public Service losing its ability to provide frank and fearless advice, but it also showed what can happen when the Public Service is not empowered, when its values and principles, the very bedrock of government, are not respected. Justice Murphy has labelled the robodebt scheme as a massive failure in public administration. It is a failure which has cost many Australians dearly. This is not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars spent reaching settlements and legal challenges against the Commonwealth as a result of robodebt. When we weaken the Public Service we create an environment in which maladministration is more likely to take place and we weaken the tools needed for effective government, and that is not good for anyone. So, after a decade of neglect and damage, the Albanese government is setting about the unenviable job of cleaning up after the Morrison government. A task taken with vigour is the strengthening and rebuilding of our Public Service. We are putting the 'public' back into the Public Service. We are investing in our people and in their ability to create, deliver and evaluate good policy, policy which will change people's lives.

The Albanese government is also helping to put the values and principles back into the Public Service. We all chose to come into this place to serve the greater good, and that is true of those who work in government departments. This work should be framed by values and principles and prioritise long-term change over political imperatives. To facilitate this, the Public Service Amendment Bill will be adding the value of 'stewardship'. This is not a mere change in words; it is the ingraining of a deeper purpose back into the APS. It will require the Public Service to build and maintain institutional knowledge and to monitor and reflect upon long-term trends in the government's decision-making process. This legislation will seek to coordinate and set goalposts for a myriad of government priorities and agendas. It will require the Secretaries Board, the chief executives of government agencies and departments, to map out a unifying APS purpose statement. Not only will it require this, but it will require the board to review it every five years in order to ensure the APS is fit-for-purpose in meeting key targets. The legislation also strengthens the apolitical nature of the Public Service, making it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on matters relating to individual staffing.

Labor has come into government committed to transparency and accountability in government, and we are well on our way to doing this. It will take much more work to rebuild and strengthen the APS, but with concrete measures like this piece of legislation, we are making headway.

I thank our Minister for the Public Service, Senator Gallagher, for her work on this. Senator Gallagher is someone who intricately understands the vital role of the APS. Her leadership on this issue will lead to improved governance and, in turn, better outcomes for people on the ground. I know that my electorate of Lingiari will certainly be grateful for a robust and strong Public Service.

Robodebt: Tudge, Robert, Porter—these three names—

The honourable member for McEwen has a very, very solid understanding of the standing orders, and I'd just ask—actually, you don't have to refer to them; none of them are here.

No, they're all gone—fortunately. We went through that one once before—page 526 of Practice, I think it is.

Tudge, Porter and Robert: these three names are the ones responsible for the legacy that is the last government's incompetence and its contempt and indifference towards Australian people and towards a strong and compassionate Public Service. Of course, we still have one more to go: the architect, the cheerleader and the chief proponent, the member for Cook, who still has the nerve to sit in this House. To ensure that I do maintain parliamentary standards, I do my best not to bring him up too much. I also do my best to help people, unlike the member for Cook. When the multiple reports of a failing system rolled in, he doubled down to attack the most vulnerable in our society, and he denied the pain and hurt caused to regular Australian families when he was held to account. If he'd done his best, he would have listened and acted. He wouldn't have put pressure on the Australian Public Service, which led to one of this nation's greatest failings in a government program. It not only negatively impacted Australians' lives but took them in the most unfair and egregious manner possible.

The robodebt scandal was the crowning spectacle of the last government and really encapsulated the then government's relationship with the Public Service—one where public servants couldn't speak out and where they had to act in the interests not of the Australian public but of the private vendettas of politicians. That is why I rise today to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 and why I'm so passionate about promoting a frank and fearless Public Service that is empowered to hold ministerial decisions up to scrutiny and to create policy that is effective in helping Australians thrive in their everyday lives.

The Public Service Amendment Bill is an important part of the Albanese government's commitment to implementing the Australian Public Service reform agenda. It is part of the election platform we ran on. It recentres the Australian Public Service on serving the people of Australia. A Labor government will always recognise the important work that our Public Service does and we'll always do our best to facilitate the important work of servicing Australians within our local communities. That is something those opposite failed to do for the nearly 10 years that they were in power.

When Labor left office we had been successful in increasing the number of employees in the Public Service. We knew the importance of that, as we'd just set up the NDIS and could see our nation's population increasing rapidly. Labor had the vision of sustainable growth, of building a system that would help Australians. When the coalition came into government they had a vision of cheap cuts and reductionist measures. They led their fear campaign with former Prime Minister Tony Abbott cutting 15,000 Public Service jobs. While we'd sought to make sure government programs and systems were appropriately supported and funded, the other side cut them by 25 per cent, thus sending billions of dollars into the hands of Liberal donors and consultants. These decisions made so many Australian professionals redundant and made the system overwhelmed and overworked. It was the first domino in a series of blunders that led to situations like the PwC scandal and the disastrous robodebt.

Through the lack of resourcing of the Public Service and outsourcing to the private sector, we saw an exponential increase in waiting times in Veterans' Affairs, something that our government moved quickly to fix. We saw understaffing and a lack of experience in the NDIA. The staffing caps put on the Public Service meant that the government outsourced government services to a private third party rather than relying on the professionals in the Public Service to ensure that programs were running smoothly. These short-term solutions only ever set up the government to become over-reliant on consultancies. Agencies that used to provide a third perspective now did the grunt work of the Public Service. It meant millions of taxpayer dollars were given to private third parties. With the former coalition government's PwC scandal, which has had far-reaching effects across our entire system, we saw what that got the Australian public. Only the Public Service, not private consultants, are bound by the values of impartiality, accountability, and ethical advice and decision-making.

This bill will bolster the government's commitment to good governance, accountability and transparency by building a Public Service that is fit to serve modern Australia—one that is capable of handling the issues facing Australians, proactively responding to Australians' needs, and increasing its own expertise and experience. This government knows that individuals that work in the APS do so because they want to serve the Australian public. If they were in it for money, they'd go to one of the private companies or firms.

We know that under the previous government the workers of the APS couldn't do the work that they wanted to do—the work that they valued. In the robodebt scandal, we saw Centrelink employees coming out and saying that what was happening was wrong. In an open letter in January 2017, Centrelink staff, through the CPSU, spoke out, saying that they knew what they were doing was wrong and had tried to report it but weren't able to get anywhere with their concerns. That's a very damning response by Centrelink workers—to come out, stand up and say that they knew that the government was doing the wrong thing—but the government refused to fix it.

So this bill makes sure that they are actually able to speak up and speak out and hold the secretarial positions, the public service and the ministers accountable for their actions. It will do this by adding a new value of APS stewardship, which all APS employees must uphold and which, by definition, means that the APS will build capacity and institutional knowledge and support the public interest now and into the future by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does. It will have a commitment to regular and independent reviews that will be released publicly and long-term insight reports that explore trends, risks and opportunities facing Australia, allowing for long-term planning and building on expertise within the service to prepare and gain the best outcome for Australia.

Further, to support good governance, this bill will require publication of the agency's APS census results and an action plan that responds to those results. This will foster a culture of transparency and accountability for continuous improvement within agencies. This government knows that to continuously build on and support a robust public service we need to protect the systems that allow them to do their job, which is servicing the people of Australia, speaking up when they can see something wrong and using their expertise to create the best outcomes for our people.

The Australian government knows that, for society to flourish and for a government to act effectively, you need a robust, experienced and independent public service—a public service that retains talent and fosters passion to give back to the Australian community—and you need a government that will support it. This government is committed to giving the support, which the coalition didn't give, to the public service. Instead of being generous—they could have given that support—they pursued their personal agendas, based on no evidence, to win a culture war against big government.

They pursued an agenda that meant Australian professionals lost their jobs. They pursued an agenda that cut an entire sector by 25 per cent. In an open letter to the Australian public through Centrelink staff—again, in 2017—they highlighted that 5,000 people had been cut from the Department of Human Services. Decisions like these mean things for our veterans. We often hear our people, as they stand here and wrap themselves in a flag, say how they love our veterans. I don't doubt that everybody genuinely does, but we've got to do something about it. When veterans are waiting for a thousand days just to have a claim heard—not paid out but heard—something is wrong. That something was that we cut the guts out of the APS.

Instead of having a service that acted with the integrity that Australians expected, the public service was forced to be at the beck and call of the ministers who oversaw programs. As La Trobe University's Darren O'Donovan, who was a senior lecturer in administrative law, illustrated on the 7am podcast: 'They purposefully tested a program that played on people's shame of receiving debt notices and similar communications from Centrelink.'

From this program, the Income Compliance Program, which later became known as robodebt, was born—a program that was built on guilting Australians with shame, that actively sought to hurt Australians to get money for the government and that ultimately succeeded in generating shame, which ended Australian lives. Justice Murphy, who was the judge presiding over this case, described the scheme as a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure' of public administration. I've never heard an apology from those that were responsible. I bet a few of them still sit there and think that it was successful due to the raising of $1.8 billion, that it was a shame it was completely unlawful and put 435,000 vulnerable Australians in a difficult position. In fact, we saw the current Leader of the Opposition calling the royal commission into robodebt 'nothing more than a political witch-hunt'. But it had gone some way to giving 435,000 Australians their voice back after being hounded by a government that supposedly represented them over that 4½ years. As a sitting member during this period, I worked with many constituents who were targeted by this unlawful scheme that was overseen by the previous government.

I saw the mental toll that this incorrect and impersonal hounding did to everyday Australians. When we reached out and tried to advocate for them, we were stonewalled. The department had their hands tied behind their backs, and the former minister, the disgraced Alan Tudge, got up on A Current Affair, threatening to jail anyone who owed the government money. One day I would like to see people like that jailed for their decisions that caused so much pain and suffering, and that, in fact, ended people's lives. There should be accountability for those people who made those bad decisions and then tried to be tough about it. I watched as full-time students were, due to administrative errors, told they owed thousands of dollars, despite providing evidence and proof of their studies; and regular people who had been overpaid by the system but had already been proactive and settled debts. I still have mountains of correspondence in my office that we went through, detailing the stress and mental damage that the government refused to take responsibility for. They went into details about their feelings of hopelessness and distress that affected not only them but their families. And of course we remember those who took their lives due to the persistent pressure from a system that lacked integrity and compassion.

In particular, my office worked with a constituent called Debbie. She had left her job after an experience of sexual assault while working as a prison officer. She worked hard to rebuild herself and to heal, to go back to study for a Diploma of Community Services, and she was working to get herself a home. She was, at the time, fostering a 13-year-old child when the letters came. She detailed to me the extra stress and the triggering nature of the letters and how the cold and cruel nature of the way the government treated her left her vulnerable. She explicitly said that if our office hadn't stepped in to advocate for her she would have been one of the victims who took their own lives.

This Public Service amendment in front of the House today is the start to making sure something like robodebt never happens again. We want to make sure that the Public Service is built for the Australian people and that public servants are enabled to do the work they have expertise in, in bringing quality policy to protect Australians and help them thrive. Quite often we hear people saying that they're just cardigan-wearing fat cats, but if you have a look across the Public Service and see the people involved—whether they're nurses or our staff that we deal with here in the parliament—they are, most importantly, the people that are doing the policy and doing the work for the Australian public each and every day. They don't deserve to be hounded. They don't deserve to be browbeaten. They deserve to be supported and given the opportunity to do what they do best: stand up, deliver good policy and make sure that they work in the best interests of all Australians. That is why it's so important that this bill has a speedy passage.

I rise today to support the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 to amend the Public Service Act 1999. The Australian Public Service plays an essential role in assisting the government of the day and in supporting our communities. The Public Service is the policy engine which drives Australia forward. From education to health, social services and economics, our communities rely on the Public Service, and we are grateful to them for the work that they do. There is almost no institution more important in our democracy than our Public Service. They are the ballast in policymaking. They are the people who formulate new ideas, who give frank and fearless advice to the government and who are responsible for policy development and implementation. If you look around the world, Mr Deputy Speaker, you see that those countries that have a successful and strong public service are those countries that are themselves successful. It is an essential ingredient in a modern and successful democracy, the engine of reform and delivery for the people that every government in the world serves.

This government has shown its support for the Public Service. Unfortunately, the support and gratitude that is provided on this side of the House is not shared by the former government and those on that side of the House. It's indeed unfortunate that this legislation is even needed today. For nearly a decade the Australian Public Service was gutted and its employees neglected by those opposite. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give you some of the startling facts, the extent to which the Public Service was gutted and neglected over the course of the last terms of government. Between 2013 and 2019, the number of public servants per 10,000 Australians fell from 69.78 to 56.7. That's a massive decline in the size of the Public Service in Australia, a gutting of the Public Service in many different departments and sections of our government. In many cases it was a hollowing out of capability and a replacing of that capability with consultants and labour hire.

This began right back in 2013 with the Abbott government. The Abbott government embarked upon a war on the Australian Public Service. In his brief two years in office, Mr Abbott took out 15,000 APS jobs. There were 15,000 fewer APS jobs after just two years of the Abbott government, with valuable public servants shed in so many areas. There is nothing wrong with efficiency. There is nothing wrong with ensuring that the Public Service is doing its job with the fewest people possible. But that is not what happened under the Abbott government. Under the Abbott government, the Public Service was systematically targeted and gutted to the tune of 15,000 APS jobs. It came at the cost of services and it came at the cost of policy development and delivery.

The Morrison government also showed contempt for the Public Service. They spent 70 per cent of a $20 billion fund on outsourced service providers—a shadow workforce of 54,000 people, which they kept secret from the Australian people. A quarter of this fund was used for outsourced contractors and consultants. In a desperate attempt at budget repair, they attempted to cut $3.3 billion from the Public Service. This was a government which attempted to sideline and neglect the Public Service. The former prime minister, the member for Cook, would berate the Public Service, telling them that they lived in the Canberra bubble and existed in silos. He referred to the bacon-and-eggs principle, saying that public servants didn't really have a stake in good policy design. He said that the Public Service should focus on implementation, not on policy development—that policy development was the job of politicians, and public servants should be responsible merely for implementation. What disrespect for this institution, which over centuries has provided frank and fearless advice. That is what they are there for—to provide advice, to develop policy solutions and to propose them to governments. And it shows an incredible lack of self-knowledge to have the former government tell the Public Service that they would take care of policy development and that the Public Service should focus only on implementation. For a government that was focused on slogans, memes and polling to suggest that they were the source of all wisdom in policy development was an outrage and an insult to the Australian Public Service and to the people that they so loyally and capably serve.

Another area where the former government showed contempt for the Public Service was in appointments. They consistently filled Public Service roles with former staffers, mates and cronies. For the role of the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the top bureaucrat in the land, they appointed the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister. From there, down into the Public Service, they made appointment after appointment on political grounds rather than merit grounds. What could be more destructive to the Public Service? What could be more demoralising to public servants than having those senior roles filled by mates of the Liberal Party rather than capable colleagues from across the Public Service who have worked their whole lives for the betterment of Australia?

Tony Abbott waged a war on the Public Service, seeking to root out people who he deemed to be political people—people who he thought had served the Labor government or were too close to the Labor government. He put an axe through the senior ranks of the Public Service to purge it of people who he thought were insufficiently loyal to him. Again, it was a disastrous act, a disrespectful act, a loss of capability for the Australian Public Service and a terrible message to give to loyal people who work hard for our community every day.

All of this, of course, brings us to the robodebt scandal. Australians will never forget robodebt. In 2020, the member for Cook said of the Public Service that he wanted a laser-sharp focus on serving the quiet Australians. Yet, throughout his prime ministership, there were Australians crying out for help. They were not Australians who were served; they were Australians who were harmed. There were over 400,000 victims—over 400,000 Australians—with $1.8 billion taken from them.

Two thousand people died after receiving their robodebt advice from Centrelink. How many of these were the so-called quiet Australians? How many cries for help did the former government choose to hear and choose not to hear? How many people did they choose to ignore? Robodebt will forever remain a shameful chapter in our nation's story—a time when the government of the day targeted its most vulnerable citizens and wrecked the lives of thousands of people and their families.

That's why the robodebt royal commission has been so important. The robodebt royal commission heard from over 100 witnesses, from victims to public sector workers. We heard from Centrelink employees who tried raising concerns about the program but were ultimately ignored. They were ignored by the philosophy of the former government that the Public Service was there merely to implement, not to develop policy or to advise. The outcome of that dictum was very directly the robodebt disaster. Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes described the scheme as both a 'crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal'. It was a shameful chapter and, in her words, a 'costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms'.

The royal commission has been dismissed by those opposite as a witch-hunt, and they have accused the Minister for Government Services and the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme of politicising the issue. They could not be more wrong. The robodebt royal commission goes to the heart of our democracy and its hallowed institutions. The robodebt royal commission shows what can happen when the Public Service is sidelined, ignored and denuded of its capability. The robodebt royal commission shows us what we must never do again, and it motivates us to rebuild the Public Service and to support the Public Service. The royal commission will go down in history as having exposed the sheer scale of neglect and apathy from the former government.

That's why this bill today is so important. One of the key lessons of the five-year robodebt saga was the importance of integrity in government and ensuring a robust public service. The bill in front of us today presents an opportunity to renew the role of the Australian Public Service. Amending the Public Service Act 1999 is an important part of the Albanese government's agenda in reforming the Australian Public Service. This bill has four fundamental areas of focus: first, to ensure that the APS embodies integrity; second, to put people and businesses at the heart of the Public Service's work; third, to ensure that the Australian Public Service is a model employer; and fourth, to ensure that the Australian Public Service has the capability to perform its work well.

Currently, the Public Service operates under five core values: impartiality, commitment to service, accountability, respect and ethical operations. This bill introduces a sixth value: the value of stewardship. Stewardship is about more than supervision; it's about building capability and institutional knowledge. It is about supporting the public interest and ensuring that the APS is future fit for its important work. Stewardship aims to strengthen the APS's core values and principles and encourage a culture of transparency and accountability. Time and again, the former government betrayed this principle. Whether it was the billions of dollars cut from hospitals in 2014, the neglect of Public Service advice over many years or the use of contractors—labour hire firms running rampant in the public service: the shadow workforce being built from contractors. All of that was exactly the opposite of stewardship. It was the antithesis of building capability and custodianship. What we're suggesting is that we should reduce unnecessary hierarchy to create greater efficiency within the APS and give our respected employees a greater voice.

This bill will also require departments to conduct capability reviews every five years. This would an involve an assessment of an organisation's strength, areas for further development and medium- and long-term risk analysis. Importantly, all these findings would be made public, consistent with the principle of transparency and accountability. We need to ensure that we restore public trust in the Public Service—trust which has eroded over the last decade of apathy and neglect. The amendment would reduce unnecessary hierarchy to empower our Public Service employees. To instruct each agency to develop an action plan to continue to improve its capability and expertise into the future, the release of the agency's APS census results would also be made public. Again, this is a key lesson from the Morrison government that this Albanese government is learning from and rising above: the importance of transparency and accountability.

On top of stewardship, this bill strengthens the APS's core values. Amending the Public Service Act would require the APS to promote a new purpose statement—one which agency heads would be required to uphold in the long term. This is a bill that recognises the importance of the Public Service in our democracy. It values them. It values the contribution they make to policy development and policy implementation. I commend it to the House.

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 and I acknowledge the contributions of my colleague the member of Parramatta and others who have spoken on this side of the House. Our government was elected on a broad platform of reform—reform to our healthcare system and our aged-care system, reform to our universities and our schools, and, importantly, reform of our Public Service. The Public Service is crucial to what we do as a government and what we want to do in the future. That includes supporting the most vulnerable Australians, improving health care and aged care and pushing down cost-of-living pressures.

In order to do that, if we want to do all of those things, we need a Public Service that doesn't just work well; it needs to be world class, the best of the best. But, unfortunately, during the last decade, the coalition diminished the role of the Public Service, relying excessively on contractors and consultants and outsourcing policy. The coalition was deliberate in its dismantling of a robust Public Service that should provide frank and fearless advice to the government of the day.

These legislative changes that we debate today are part of our agenda not just to rebuild but to renew the Australian Public Service. Importantly, the proposed changes have also been informed by consultation with employees, representative groups, agencies, experts, the public and interested parties, including the Community and Public Sector Union. That's because the Public Service is not some collection of buildings in Canberra but dedicated people who commit their working lives to supporting our country.

The bill will strengthen the Public Service's purpose and core values, build the capability and expertise of the Public Service and support good governance, accountability and transparency. This is something we desperately need to do. Take robodebt. It showed us that public administration can fail and, when it does, can result in real human tragedy. It shows us the impact of political expedience and indifference for those most in need, the most vulnerable Australians. It showed us what happens when government does not listen to our experts.

Our Public Service reform is about making sure that schemes like robodebt don't happen, that they can't happen, that they never happen again. The amendments put in place clear, practical steps to support and improve the work of Public Service agencies. They create mechanisms for peer review and for external scrutiny and for guarding against political interference and intimidation, which were clearly so dominant in the robodebt scheme.

The royal commission uncovered a systemic approach to sweeping tragedy under the rug, by the most senior members of the former cabinet, in favour of an inflated budget bottom line. When I look at the royal commission, what stands out to me, in my role as Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, are the tragic stories of two young men who died by suicide as a direct result of this failed scheme. In one case, of a young man, his mother found in his apartment debt letters hanging on the fridge. In the other, prior to his death by suicide, he said, 'I will never get out of debt.'

The final report talks of many others who felt they had no way out, including one victim who recalls thinking, while driving home one night, 'I could just drive my car into a tree and make it stop.' While the illegal and unethical scheme alleged debts against some 526,000 Australians directly, these suicides and suicidal ideation display the true nature of robodebt. We are determined to make sure that that does not happen again. Our government understands that suicide is individual and complex and not exclusively the heartbreaking result of severe mental ill-health. Suicide is the result of multiple contributing factors, drivers of distress, drivers such as childhood abuse, domestic and family violence, relationship breakdown and, importantly, financial distress.

This royal commission is a stark reminder that our policy decisions matter. They have a real human impact, and policies introduced with little regard for the most vulnerable can lead to heightened distress that results in tragic consequences. To quote from page iii of the royal commission:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings.

It is clear we need this bill, that the Australian public need this bill and that the most vulnerable in our community need this bill. At its heart this bill and the Albanese government's broader APS reform agenda are about restoring the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions. We are cleaning up the mess left behind by the coalition. They gutted the Public Service, reduced capability and outsourced billions of dollars of work to consultants and contractors. These reforms will strengthen the Public Service's core purpose and values; build capability and expertise; and support good governance, accountability and transparency. The challenges we face as a country are immense. We must be prepared for the next decade and the future ahead, and to face those challenges we need a strong, fearless public service.

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. We know the Public Service plays an important role in the lives of all Australians, so a bill to improve the Public Service is critical to the delivery of better outcomes for Australians who use and depend on their services. The need for such improvements and reforms has been highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic and cost-of-living pressures. This bill emphasises integrity in the Public Service, an issue that has come under scrutiny recently through the appalling findings of the robodebt royal commission and the ongoing revelations about the role and conduct of external consultancies. Australians deserve better. Taxpayer money must be put to best use in the public interest and with integrity and accountability. The government needs to stem the increasing politicisation of the Public Service and prevent future conflicts of interest.

This bill presents an opportunity for the government to restore the public's trust and confidence in government and its institutions. The recently released wellbeing framework shows that the public's trust in institutions and the Public Service continues to decline, now at less than 50 per cent. So this bill is a key element of the government's Australian Public Service reform agenda, which gives effect to a number of the recommendations of the Thodey review. The APS reform agenda has four priority areas to create an Australian Public Service that, firstly, embodies integrity in everything it does; secondly, puts people and business at the centre of policy and services; thirdly, is a model employer; and, fourthly, has the capability to do its job well.

There is no doubt that we have seen more and more the influence and impact of the politicisation of the Public Service. The Public Service must be able to withstand changes of government. It must be able to be frank and fearless in its advice and in how it refers back to the executive. Its job is in the public interest, and it must be there for the Australian people. This bill proposes to address this by adding a new Australian Public Service value of stewardship and adding an APS purpose statement to address the issue that the APS is currently thought to be too internally focused.

It also adds the value of impartiality to reaffirm the apolitical role of the Australian Public Service by making it explicit that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. While this will help enforce impartiality, I don't believe it goes far enough. Research from the Grattan Institute found that nearly one in 10 of all federal government board appointees have a direct political connection. This figure rises to 21 per cent among those positions that are well paid, prestigious and/or powerful. It becomes the conveyor belt of opportunity for those that have been in politics. There must be a non-partisan scrutiny of senior public service appointments. I commend the member for Mackellar for her efforts to make the appointment process more transparent and accountable through her private member's bill to end jobs for mates. I urge the government to consider amending this legislation to take into account the gold standard of accountability framework for board appointments.

The Public Service Amendment Bill will build the capability of its staff to create a skilled and confident workforce with five yearly capability reviews. The Thodey review points out that the capabilities of the APS have eroded over time with successive governments deciding to cut funding to various agencies. Then, the only people that ultimately pay the price is the public, because the service they receive from the APS is no longer what it should be. So the recommendation from the Thodey review was hiring talented people and offering a quality employee experience in a dynamic workplace.

There must also be accountability around that public service. The bill adds long-term insights reporting and good governance, ensuring the APS is a rewarding place to work.

The bill also includes an accountability and transparency measure through the publishing of annual employee census results. That is very much welcome.

The bill will also enable decision-making to occur at the lowest appropriate classification, which will improve decision-making, empowering staff and reducing bottlenecks. I commend this amendment, as we saw firsthand in our Warringah electoral office the result of bottlenecking in the APS with the post COVID backlog of, for example, visa approvals, where it was clear insufficient workforce had resulted in a process which was really not serving the Australian people well. We saw that as well with passports and so many other areas of public service. The suggested amendment to allow approvals lower down the line will help with this.

Still there is much that could be done better. The bill would be improved by a provision that the merit appointment provision of the Public Service Act should not be evaded by placing external contractors in APS positions, which is hiring talented APS staff to reduce the need for hiring external consultants. Of course, the public has been horrified by the revelations in relation to PwC and the other big four in relation to consulting and ensuring that the Australian public is getting value for money.

The Morrison government spent some $20.8 billion on contractors and outsourcing public service in one financial year alone. An audit found that the equivalent of nearly 54,000 full-time staff were employed as consultants or service providers during the 2021-22 financial year. Those figures are staggering and really shocking to most in the Australian public. While consultants undoubtedly have their place in providing external advice and independent opinion, the practice of shifting cost, risk and responsibility to the private sector is unsustainable and does not represent value for money. It also doesn't ensure that the Australian people have policies and advice to government that survive changes of government. We have to get to policy making that goes beyond the short-term of each parliament.

Also, the practice of only paying for what you want to hear is one of the most corrupting and wasteful practices in this relationship and requires urgent action. The government must look to include the findings from the robodebt royal commission, in particular the recommendations in chapter 23 of the report, which were about improving the APS. That includes an immediate review to determine if the existing structure of the Social Services portfolio and the status of Services Australia as an entity are optimal and whether the agency heads must be held accountable. The report recommends an enhanced ability to investigate departmental secretaries and that former staff be able to be disciplined. At present, secretaries are not covered by the APS Code of Conduct, nor are officials who have left. The APS Commission should develop standards for the documenting of important decisions and discussions and the delivery of training on those standards. We should never have a situation where—for example, under robodebt—the answer that is coming from an external consultant or from a department is not the answer the government of the day wants to hear so the money is paid but no report is made. The lack of integrity in that process is just astounding. The Public Service needs real independence and to be able to be speak truth to power without risking losing their jobs. Robodebt is the very real proof that this needs to happen. Nonetheless, the Public Service must also be held to clear KPIs. It must be held to standards and accountability. There must be delivery of service. Things must be held to budget.

Section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act should be repealed. This section makes it too easy for the government to avoid scrutiny by claiming a document is a cabinet document and can't be released. This blocks journalists from revealing more, for example, about robodebt and so many other issues. Also the government should tighten the regulation of community development grants so that they serve the public interest rather than the interests of those in marginal and government held electorates.

Finally I would like to thank the staff and the team at Services Australia in my electorate, at the centre in Warringah Mall in Brookvale. I had the opportunity to visit them on Friday last week and discuss up close with them the incredible service they do to help the more vulnerable in our community around a number of services. I really thank them for their hospitality and for sharing with me their experience and their concerns—the very real concerns they have from time to time for their safety and how they are viewed. One of the very direct messages I have from them for government—and I think this applies to both sides—is that when politicians in this place decide to play politics and reveal, for example, issues around policy positions and put them out into the public arena, such as an announcement on JobSeeker or something like that, those frontline staff have to deal with people coming to centres like Services Australia and handle their queries and concerns when they have not even received the detail or the brief or anything that might be intended by government. It's really important that we in the bubble of this place do not forget the public servants that are out there doing the work on the ground, on the frontline, helping so many in our communities.

So I support this bill, but I urge the government to take further measures as I have outlined. The government must take learnings from the past 10 years—robodebt, COVID, the PwC conflict-of-interest debacle. The government needs to proceed with reforms to create a public service with integrity, accountability, expertise and good governance at its core. The royal commission's call for systemic change must be acted upon so that robodebt can never happen again.

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill, an important bill which goes to the legislative core and commitment of the Albanese Labor government's Australian Public Service reform agenda. This is a reform agenda that seeks to rebuild the Australian Public Service, to restore integrity and transparency, and to ensure the principle of that renowned term 'frank and fearless advice'. Its purpose is to address the undermining of the Public Service during the 10 years of the coalition government—10 years in which those opposite actively diminished the role of the Public Service. Instead of preferring a dynamic public service, they depended on private profiteers through an excessive reliance on contractors and consultants through a policy of outsourcing right across the Public Service, thus outsourcing their responsibility to govern.

We have seen recently what happens when we outsource government policy and decision-making advice and analysis to contractors and consultants. It generally gets leaked to the media, and it's influenced and exploited in a secretive way, driven by one sole purpose: to appeal to the highest bidder at the expense of Australian taxpayers and at the expense of our national economy. It is done at the expense of reform and progress designed to benefit the Australian people and the safety nets that Australians rely on across all stages of their life.

There's a real difference between us on this side of the House and those opposite. Their standard operating procedure is to deal and govern in secrecy deliberately and on account of their incompetence, which they sought to hide from the Australian people. Ours is one of trust and accountability, and this bill is a clear reflection of this, because most of its amendments are recommendations of the 2019 Independent Review of the Australian Public Service and go to its intent. It's a reflection of this trust and accountability because the proposed changes have also been informed by a broad and transparent consultation with employees, representative groups, agencies, experts, the public and other interested parties, including the Community and Public Sector Union, the CPSU. State based public service commissions also support this bill, and they noted connections with their own reform agenda. We also saw public sector research bodies being largely supportive of the bill for continuing implementation of the review. It's a reflection of this government's commitment to restoring the Australian public's trust in our institutions and agencies, as this bill will strengthen the APS's core purpose and values, which are to build the capability and expertise of the APS and support good governance, accountability and transparency.

The people in my electorate of Calwell understand the importance of a trusted and properly functioning public sector, and in recent times they have felt this all too clearly through policies presided over by those opposite. My community knows what it's like and has seen what happens when the Public Service doesn't function correctly, openly and transparently, when there isn't good governance and when there is no accountability. What could be more damning of this reality than the so-called Income Compliance Program, what is now known as robodebt? This program was more than mere incompetence, although that would be damning enough. Robodebt was a disaster driven by a contempt for the Australian people, a contempt for the role and function of our public sector and a contempt for our most vulnerable citizens. In a remarkable and extreme display of audacity, the Leader of the Opposition called the royal commission 'nothing more than a political witch hunt', not robodebt itself a witch hunt against the most vulnerable. The opposition leader has stated that the independent inquiry into robodebt itself is the witch hunt, one in which Justice Murphy, the judge presiding over the case, approved the largest class action settlement in Australian history. He described the scheme as a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure in public administration'. It was a shameful chapter which saw $1.8 billion of debt unlawfully raised against approximately 435,000 vulnerable Australians.

Under the scheme, some Centrelink debts were calculated using averaged Australian Taxation Office income information. Averaging was applied where discrepancies between income that recipients had reported to Services Australia and income data from the ATO were not explained. In November 2019 Services Australia stopped the use of averaging Australian Taxation Office income data as the sole basis for raising debts. On that day, ministers and senior public servants were going to have to give evidence in the trial of the class action. The Commonwealth was finally admitting it had no legal basis on which to raise the debts.

The royal commission into robodebt was an election commitment of the Albanese government. It was a commitment to introduce justice to a process stained by cruelty as government policy by those opposite. What we saw in those 46 days of public hearings and what we heard from more than 100 witnesses was equally heartbreaking and enraging. What we witnessed was stories of people who relied on the safety net being hounded by their government with no means of fighting back. That is counter to what we, as Australians, subscribe to as part of our belief in a fair and egalitarian society.

I also note the role of the former coalition cabinet in ticking off on major decisions in relation to the scheme, the cabinet of which the current Leader of the Opposition was a member. Between July of 2015, when what became robodebt was ticked off by cabinet, and November of 2019, when it was finally paused, approximately 435,000 Australians who relied on the social safety net were targeted by their own government in a cruel and unlawful scheme. The royal commission has gone some way to bringing a voice, visibility and justice to those who were hounded by their own government for 4½ years.

I spoke earlier about the real difference between this side of the House and those opposite, which is why I want to draw the attention of the House to the words directly from the royal commission's final report. I quote:

There are different mindsets one can adopt in relation to social welfare policy. One is to recognise that many citizens will at different times in their lives need income support—on a temporary basis for some as they study or look for work; longer-term for others, for reasons of age, disadvantage or disability—and to provide that support willingly, adequately and with respect. An alternative approach is to regard those in receipt of social security benefits as a drag on the national economy, an entry on the debit side of the Budget to be reduced by any means available: by casting recipients as a burden on the taxpayer, by making onerous requirements of those who are claiming or have claimed benefit, by minimising the availability of assistance from departmental staff, by clawing back benefits whether justly or not, and by generally making the condition of the social security recipient unpleasant and undesirable. The Robodebt scheme exemplifies the latter.

Those opposite weaponised the agencies of government against our most vulnerable in a way that was neither fair nor legal. And there was a deliberate attempt at a cover-up, with revelations of dishonesty and collusion, to hide the fact that there was no legal foundation to the scheme. The words 'illegal' and 'cruel' are a damning indictment of the role those opposite played in this devastating affair that was 'varied, extensive, devastating and continuing'. How relentless and how ruthless and how cruel. I could use more words to describe it, but I think the report speaks for itself. It is worth repeating those words here today, because of this awful deadly saga—and I use the word purposely—and I quote:

Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms.

And I further quote:

The ill effects of the scheme were varied, extensive, devastating and continuing …

The report went on to say:

The impacts of (Robodebt) on the people embroiled in it were vividly illustrated in the evidence before the Commission from the witnesses who spoke of the distress and damage they had suffered and, of course, the evidence of the mothers of the two young men who took their own lives, at least in part because of it …

Again, I quote Commissioner Holmes:

I am confident that the commission has served the purpose of bringing into the open an extraordinary saga, illustrating a myriad of ways that things can go wrong through venality, incompetence and cowardice," commissioner Catherine Holmes wrote in the report released Friday.

I want to say 'deadly' cowardice in this case. A real mark of shame is that those opposite, those responsible for this scheme, have taken no responsibility, no accountability—no justice. It's remarkable how little interest has been shown in the legality of their scheme.

Ours is a government committed to justice. We are committed to restoring trust in government, especially for those who rely most on government. Australians from all walks of life should know that government in Australia is there to deliver a social safety net and that government will now take time to consider the 57 recommendations in the final report of the royal commission, an independent process that has been overseen by Commissioner Holmes. The evidence that was given throughout the commission was incredibly disturbing, especially with regard to the former Liberal ministers that implemented and oversaw the scheme over 4½ years.

This bill would introduce amendments requiring all agency heads to uphold and promote the new APS purpose statement in addition to the APS values and principles to strengthen the Australian Public Service's core purpose and values. Importantly, it would clarify and strengthen the provisions in the act to make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. This will reaffirm the APS's apolitical nature. This bill also supports good governance, accountability and transparency. The bill will introduce amendments to require agency heads to implement measures to enable decisions to be made by employees at the lowest appropriate classification for those decisions. This will ensure decision-making is not raised to a higher level than is necessary, reducing unnecessary hierarchy and empowering Australian Public Service employees. That's the basis for the frank and fearless advice that we need and that the Australian public demand and deserve from our agencies.

As members of parliament, we have constituents who come to us for help in navigating what can often be complex service delivery processes relating to government agencies. When we assist, our offices assume that government agencies are acting in good faith in trying to get the best outcome in delivering to our constituents their rights. What the robodebt scheme did served to attack the public's trust in the integrity of our government agencies. Here is the real witch-hunt, if every there were one, in the public sector—a witch-hunt against people accessing a system designed to address the social safety net that this country's social fabric is reliant on. That is why I find it astonishing that the Leader of the Opposition speaks of witch-hunts—not against the victims of the scheme, but crying poor for those responsible for its design and implementation.

Recent estimates relating to unemployment data have shown my electorate to have among the highest rates of unemployment across all Australia. As economic headwinds change, access to entitlements and services is a right afforded to every single one of my constituents that meet the basic requirements. That's the value of residency and citizenship, the value of being an Australian and the value of a social safety net designed to benefit those accessing it as well as those contributing to it.

Those who broke the law through robodebt, cheated Australians and drove down our public institutions and the trust in and integrity of our Public Service were not those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. Some we know of, but there are many whose scars and trauma we may never know of. Those who carried the burden were victims of those who, without shame, continue to this day to defend the circumstances behind this tragic and shameful chapter. That's why we need to restore trust in public administration and a serious and structural reform agenda that will restore integrity to the Australian Public Service. I commend this bill to the House.

I too rise to speak to the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. I note and acknowledge the previous speaker and other speakers from this side, particularly in terms of reflecting on the capacity and independence of our Public Service. I certainly am very pleased to be supporting this important bill that is before the House.

This bill will amend the Public Service Act 1999, and it contributes to the Albanese government's Australian Public Service reform agenda—a reform agenda that's vitally important. This bill forms part of our government's intent to support and rebuild the Australian Public Service because we value the worth and the work of our public servants.

This bill is fundamentally about restoring faith and trust in the Australian Public Service. In fact, that is what Labor governments do, because we do support a strong and independent Public Service, one that provides frank and fearless advice to government, as it should do. We support a Public Service that provides effective policy development, that is reforming, that has a delivery function, that provides important advice to governments, and, very importantly, is transparent and independent. We absolutely value that and value those who work in our Public Service right across the nation.

Our government's Public Service reform agenda has four key priority areas: firstly, an Australian Public Service that embodies integrity in everything that it does; secondly, an Australian Public Service that puts people and business at the centre of policy and services, because we are delivering for the Australian people and they have to be at the centre of all decision-making; thirdly, an Australian Public Service that is in fact a model employer; and, fourthly, an Australian Public Service that has the capability to do its job well, is properly resourced and regarded and functions effectively and efficiently in providing that independent, frank and fearless advice. These legislative changes are part of our agenda to rebuild the Public Service, which has indeed suffered under a decade of the previous government. Many of the amendments were recommendations of the 2019 Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, the Thodey review, or goes to its intent. The proposed changes have also been informed by consultation—a whole range of consultation—with employees, representative groups, agencies, experts, the public and interested parties, including the Community and Public Sector Union.

The bill will, very importantly, strengthen the Australian Public Service's core purpose and values, build the capability and expertise of the APS, and support good governance, accountability, and transparency. All of these issues are at the heart of a good, thriving, strong democracy. Our institutions are vitally important and our Public Service is vitally important. In terms of strengthening the Public Service's core purpose and values, the bill will introduce amendments to add a new APS value of stewardship that all APS employees must uphold. Stewardship will be defined as:

The APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future, by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does.

It requires the Secretaries Board to oversee the development of a single unifying APS purpose statement and review it once every five years. This requires all agency heads to uphold and promote the new APS purpose statement in addition to the APS values and employment principles. The bill also clarifies and strengthens this provision in the act to make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. This, importantly, reaffirms that the Public Service's apolitical nature, which is exactly what it should be—completely apolitical.

When it comes to building up the capability and expertise of the APS, the bill introduces amendments to make regular independent and transparent capability reviews, a five-yearly requirement for each department, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. Capability reviews will assess organisational strength and areas for development with reports and action plans responding to findings required to be publicly released. It requires the Secretaries Board to commission regular long-term insight reports to explore medium-term and long-term trends, risks and opportunities facing Australia. These reports will ensure the APS can build trust, expertise and understanding of cross-cutting issues that matter to all Australians.

With this bill the government intends to support good governance, accountability and transparency. The bill will introduce amendments to require publication of agencies' APS census results and an action plan that responds to results. This will foster a culture of transparency and accountability for continuous improvement within agencies. It will require agency heads to implement measures to enable decisions to be made by employees at the lowest appropriate classification for those specific decisions. This will ensure decision-making is not raised to a higher level than necessary, reducing unnecessary hierarchy and also empowering APS employees.

This bill is at its heart about restoring faith and trust in our great Public Service. It's about rebuilding the confidence that the Public Service has within itself and valuing that confidence. When the Albanese government was elected, we came in here with a clear purpose to restore confidence in our institutions, to ensure faith in government, and to enshrine accountability and transparency in everything we do. For those reasons we took action to introduce the National Anti-Corruption Commission, an issue that for the community had called for, for a long time. We are proud to have introduced that because people need to have that transparency and that accountability. We all need to have that and we are all very proud of the steps we are taking.

A strong and independent Public Service is central to the well-functioning and healthy democracy we have here in Australia. Of course, during the last decade under the Liberals and Nationals, the role of the Public Service was extremely diminished and politicised at times. They also relied excessively on contractors and consultants, and frequently outsourced policy. What that showed is that, by engaging in such massive outsourcing, they had no respect for the insights and care of the Public Service, its objective and its important role. It really showed they didn't appreciate or have concern for that.

That's why the Liberals and Nationals always seek to diminish the Public Service—to cut and underfund it. In fact, they do this at all levels of government, whether it's local, state or here in our federal parliament. This cut-and-criticise agenda has led to policy failure after policy failure. Indeed, with a stronger and properly resourced Public Service, we would perhaps not have seen the bungles and failures that the previous government presided over. We wouldn't have seen the outsourcing—the equivalent of nearly 54,000 full-time staff employed, over a lengthy period of time, as consultants or service providers for the federal government. It is the equivalent of 37 per cent of the more than 144,000 employee-strong Public Service. That's a huge number that were outsourced.

Far from how the opposition like to paint our Public Service as an over-bloated organisation, that criticism they put forward is fundamentally wrong because our Public Service is fundamental to so many daily interactions that members of the public have with government. It is absolutely vital. The outsourcing agenda, combined with the gross lack of oversight by the previous government, undoubtedly led to disasters like PwC and robodebt.

The Income Compliance Program, known as robodebt, began operating as a pilot program in early 2015 and progressed through various iterations until it was paused in November 2019 and, ultimately, later scrapped. We know it unlawfully raised $1.8 billion of debt against approximately 435,000 vulnerable Australians. Indeed, under the scheme, some Centrelink debts were calculated using averaged Australian Taxation Office income information. Averaging was applied where discrepancies between recipient-reported income to Services Australia and income data from the ATO were unexplained.

In November 2019, Services Australia stopped the use of the averaging of the ATO income data as the sole basis for raising debts. On that day, ministers and senior public servants would have to have given evidence in the trial on the class action. The Commonwealth finally admitted it had no legal basis to raise those debts. Justice Murphy, the judge presiding over the case, approved the largest class action settlement in Australian history because of what had happened. He described the scheme as 'a shameful chapter' and 'a massive failure in public administration'. Indeed, it was a huge failure of public administration, with devastating consequences.

The lack of oversight of this scheme, rather than the former government properly utilising the resources of the APS, is one of the many reasons why this government established the royal commission into robodebt. The government will now take time to consider those 57 recommendations in the final report.

We all know and note that at times the evidence that was given throughout the royal commission was incredibly disturbing and distressing—especially with the regard to former coalition ministers who implemented and oversaw the scheme for over 4½ years, when they had been alerted to many of its problems. What we saw in those 46 days of public hearings, and what we heard from more than 100 witnesses, was equal parts heartbreaking, infuriating and devastating. The scheme cost lives. We know that. We know the devastating impact of it.

I also note the role of the former coalition cabinet in ticking off major decisions in relation to the scheme—of which the current Leader of the Opposition was a member at the time. After we announced the royal commission, the opposition leader said it was nothing more than a political witch-hunt—an appalling statement to make. The royal commission has gone some way to bring a voice, visibility and some justice to those who were hounded by their own government for 4½ years—hounded with devastating impacts. People should have faith in their governments and institutions, not be so cruelly hounded as they were in the case of robodebt.

We are a government that believes strongly in building up our Public Service so that they can provide that appropriate service to the public. I am very proud of this bill and I'm proud of the many institutions in this nation. Indeed, on this side of the House, we'll always support the Public Service and the very, very fine people that make up its ranks, and the absolute dedication they have to providing the services and policies that the Australian people do need. In fact, the Public Service is core to our way of life and our democratic system, and they suffered a lot under that last decade of the Liberals and Nationals. Many public servants had their job security in limbo. Far too many jobs were outsourced. It is now time for all of that to stop, to end that waste and restore that confidence in the Australian Public Service. That's what those of us in the Albanese Labor government are absolutely committed to doing. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak in support of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. This bill amends the Public Service Act 1999. It's yet another contribution to the Albanese Labor government's strengthening of the Australian Public Service, reforms that are long overdue.

I cannot overstate the importance of a Public Service that is empowered to properly do its job. A core part of this job is the ability to provide frank and fearless advice, and with all the revelations we continue to learn of the previous coalition government's decade of wreckage this only becomes more evident—what happens when the Public Service is outsourced to private consultancies and what happens when the Public Service is not empowered to provide advice, not given the leeway to be frank and fearless or, when it does provide advice, to be ignored.

We need an Australian Public Service that is responsive, responsible, valued and trusted, trusted by the government and the people of Australia. This bill is important because it will strengthen the APS' core purpose and values. It will build the capability and expertise of the APS and support good governance, accountability and transparency.

I have enormous respect for our public servants, and since becoming an assistant minister, particularly, I have had the privilege to work with and receive advice from many talented and capable people in the department. Fostering those relationships is important so we can not only support those employees to perform their roles but, above all, get better outcomes on the ground for the people in our communities.

In my previous role as ACTU president, through the mighty CPSU, I had the privilege of meeting and interacting with many wonderful public servants at all levels of government, people who care deeply about their roles and the people they serve. In 2019, the independent Thodey review of the APS made a number of recommendations. It called on bold action to ensure that the APS could become a high-performing institution. It called for deep cultural change. Clearly, it all fell on deaf ears. It's now nearly 4½ years later and the pattern is clear. The coalition let another important report gather dust. They ignored the advice and failed to deal with the consequences.

This Labor government is absolutely committed to strengthening the Australian Public Service, because after a decade of coalition destruction and distraction we know that it sorely needs it. Just a few months ago, an audit of the Australian Public Service found that the Morrison government spent $20.8 billion on outsourcing Public Service provision and external consultants during the 2021-22 financial year alone. In one year, $20.8 billion! The audit found that the equivalent of around 54,000 full-time staff were employed as consultants or service providers. All the while, they maintained a cap on public servant staff numbers, aptly described by our Minister for the Public Service, Senator Katy Gallagher, as a 'mirage of efficiency'.

Labor has long been committed to addressing this inconsistency for the betterment of the Public Service as well as the economy and the Australian community that the Public Service serves. And we have already taken action. In the last budget we converted around 3,300 external labour arrangements into permanent public sector jobs. These are full-time roles that should have been just that, all the while, but the former government was more than happy to outsource them at a cost. Converting just these jobs into full-time positions has saved $800 million in the budget, not to mention regarnishing some of that skill and knowledge that is so important for our Public Service. And now, unfortunately, we know exactly what happens when the capability of the Public Service is systematically undermined. We know what it looks like when ministers such as the member for Cook or the former members for Sturt and Aston either do not seek or simply refuse to listen to advice from their departments. And we know the pain and tragedy this can cause the Australian people.

I am of course referring to the findings from the royal commission into the coalition's illegal robodebt scheme. From its inception in early 2015 and through various iterations, until it was paused and later scrapped in 2019, robodebt unlawfully raised $1.8 billion of debt against approximately 435,000 vulnerable Australians. In November 2019 Services Australia stopped the use of averaging Australian Taxation Office income data as the sole basis for raising debt. On that day, ministers and senior public servants would have to have given evidence in the trial of the class action. The Commonwealth finally admitted it had no legal basis to raise those debts. Justice Murphy, the judge presiding over the case, approved the largest class action settlement in Australian history. He described the scheme as a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure in public administration'.

I remember, when I was first elected, the stories from constituents who would come to my office and tell me what they were experiencing as a consequence of this illegal and shameful scheme. It was distressing. One poor woman had folders and folders of payslips, affidavits, letters of support and other evidence. She literally fell over my office doorstep laden by the reams of paper and burdened by anxiety and depression. She literally screamed for help. Desperation was driving despair. She felt hounded and dehumanised. She was ultimately exonerated, but the scars remained.

Now, nearly four years later, the royal commission has delivered its report, and it was crystal clear in its assessment of the former government and their failures. It repeated the sentiment Justice Murphy made in 2019, stating:

Robo-debt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals.

In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms.

This is what happens when the Public Service is completely disempowered. It is what happens when you do not support a Public Service to provide fearless, independent advice. The Australian people do not need an army of yes-men. They do not need policy dictated down from ministers to public servants, who fear that they cannot say no or provide advice to the contrary. Indeed, the robodebt report says:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings.

I thank and applaud the Prime Minister and the Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten, for pursuing justice for the robodebt victims, for giving them a voice in this House. The robodebt royal commission report stands as a stark reminder of what happens when the APS is stripped of its core functions, devalued and undermined. This bill is just another facet of our reform agenda for the APS, a beginning of restoration, of trust, of capability and of culture. We've seen a decade of the coalition's diminishing of the Public Service and an excessive reliance on outsourcing, on consultants and contractors, for anything and everything that should be core business of a strong Public Service.

The report was extremely comprehensive, and it's right that we take our time to consider its recommendations. Given the findings of the robodebt royal commission report, it is clearer than ever that we need our Public Service not only to be an effective and trusted institution but to have a clear, common purpose. This bill delivers a number of reforms that will strengthen the apolitical role of the Public Service, reaffirm its impartiality and foster a culture of integrity. We must never let a situation like robodebt happen again, and it is clear that significant reform to the Public Service is a critical part of this. It must be done and it must be done right.

I'll start this summing-up speech by thanking all members who've contributed to this discussion. What has been very heartening to hear in all of the contributions has been a reflection on the real value that the institution that is the Australian Public Service provides not just to all of us in this place but to all Australians in ensuring that we have the quality services and quality policy on which we all rely.

This bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill, amends the Public Service Act 1999 as a key element of the Albanese government's ambitious APS reform agenda. The case for ambitious and enduring reform of the APS is clear, and it has become only clearer in recent months. At its heart, this bill and the government's broader APS reform agenda are about restoring the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions. The Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, led by Mr David Thodey, is a key input into this bill. The bill is designed to address the challenges facing the APS now and into the future, and the Albanese government's amendments to the Public Service Act will embed in legislation reform that guides and governs the Public Service.

Our reform agenda has four clear priorities. The first is an APS that embodies integrity in everything that it does. The second is an APS that puts people and business at the centre of policy and services. The third is an APS that is a model employer. And the fourth is an Australian Public Service that has the capability to do its job well. This bill supports each of these priorities. This bill will strengthen the Australian Public Service's core values and purpose, build the capability and expertise of the Australian Public Service and support good governance, accountability and transparency. I say to all members: this bill is the start of an ambitious legislative reform agenda for the APS, not the end.

What we had in the recommendations of the Thodey review in 2019 were recommendations for strengthening the purpose of the Public Service and its values and promoting a shared understanding of its role. I have been encouraged in the conversations we've had here about more appreciation of that shared role that the APS plays for all of our work and, indeed, a number of comments where people were telling their stories. I noted this from both government ministers and former ministers on the opposition front bench who were sharing stories about how much they valued that work that they do in developing policy to improve the lives of all Australians by working with our Public Service.

The core vision that comes out of Thodey and is in part delivered through this legislation is about having a Public Service that is integrated as one organisation, as one APS. This amendment bill delivers on this intent and supports the government's APS reform priorities, creating an APS that acts with integrity in everything that it does. The bill will add a new value of 'stewardship', requiring that 'the APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future, by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does'. By requiring all APS employees to uphold stewardship, the bill will strengthen the important and enduring role that all Public Servants play as stewards.

This bill will require the Secretaries Board to oversee the development of a single, unifying purpose statement for the Australian Public Service to complement the addition of stewardship as an APS value. The member for Bradfield raised a concern that the opportunity had not been taken to outline the core purpose of the Australian Public Service and provide an articulation of the accountability relationship in servicing the Australian people and the elected government. I report to the House that the Australian Public Service Act 1999 already sets out this relationship. In its objective it sets out to:

… establish an apolitical public service that is efficient and effective in serving the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public ….

It's also in the existing APS values. The value of accountable establishes that:

The APS is open and accountable to the Australian community under the law and within the framework of Ministerial responsibility.

So, again, we have addressed that point.

The purpose statement will indeed create that unification of the APS by uniting the APS and developing, embedding and inspiring purpose and vision. The statement will be one that resonates with all public servants wherever they might find their contribution to the great Australian Public Service and one where there is a five-yearly review mechanism. I note that, of course, like any institution, the Public Service does need to evolve over time, including in their mission statement. Ensuring that that purpose statement remains contemporary is important, because it is also about ensuring that we continue to listen to our public servants. I have been really impressed with the commitment to getting out there and listening, which has been led by a range of officials in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to make sure that when we end up with that statement it will be something that speaks to all public servants. This is consistent with recommendation 9 of the Thodey review, and it will guide that ongoing transformation of the Australian Public Service.

The other piece that I draw members' attention to is the limitations on ministerial directions to agency heads. There are many matters where ministers can rightly administer their department and direct their agency heads. But we're strengthening the relevant provision in the Public Service Act to make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. We had a very fine contribution from the member for Curtin where she raised that the bill should seek to re-establish the correct relationship between government and the APS. She also noted that the Public Service must be considered as a significant institution in its own right as part of responsible government under the Constitution. This bill seeks to deliver on that by reaffirming the apolitical role of the Australian Public Service and by providing confidence to agency heads to act with integrity in the exercise of their duties and powers. Indeed, the first APS value is to be impartial. This value, which has been there and is remaining there, is critical to the successful operation of the service and to maintaining public trust. It's key to maintaining an impartial Public Service, where we have an apolitical and merit based approach to APS employment matters, devoid of political interference.

This bill also has a strong commitment to embedding ongoing measures to build the capability and expertise in the Public Service. Talented, committed people are the foundation of our Public Service, and this bill will help to strengthen that foundation. It will help to build expertise by requiring the secretary's board to commission regular, evidence based, long-term insights reports. These reports will be developed through a process of public consultation. Long-term insights reports will explore some of the medium-term and long-term trends, risks and opportunities that Australia faces. This amendment bill will embed an expectation that the APS continually assesses its strengths and its weaknesses and takes action to uplift its capability, including by engaging with the Australian public. When we look at what we're going to do, department by department, this bill will deliver on regular, independent, transparent capability reviews as a five-yearly requirement. This will extend to each department of state, to Services Australia and to the Australian Taxation Office.

During the debate, the honourable member for Bradfield raised the issue that the bill does not account for consultation with the relevant minister. This bill does not seek to provide those detailed operational details. However, such consultation would, of course, be an inherent part of testing the future readiness of departments. I don't think anyone could credibly come in here and suggest that you would not consult with the relevant minister when you are doing a capability review of the department which they administer. By ensuring those ongoing, regular, independent capability reviews we'll also ensure that we have embedded, at the highest levels within those departments and all the way down, a culture of continuous improvement to deliver both for the government of the day, for this parliament and for the Australian community.

There's been a lot of commentary and discussion around shared commitments for transparency, good governance and accountability in this debate—values which most in this place hold very, very dear. We know that transparency can shine a light on the culture and the make-up of the Australian Public Service. It can prompt change to ensure that it remains both a great place to work and a great place to work for people from all walks of life. We want to ensure best practice governance arrangements, ensure that employees are empowered and supported in their roles and that they are given opportunities to apply and extend their skills and experience. Again, amendments in this bill address these objectives.

These amendments deliver on the APS reform priority to create an APS that is a model employer. We've spoken a lot in this place about our need to set the standard and for people to look at this parliament as a leading example, but we also want to make sure that the Australian Public Service across Australia is a model employer. One of the things we will do to help deliver on that is that agencies will be required to publish their aggregate APS Employee Census results. They will also be required to publish an action plan responding to those results. By doing this, the government aims to foster a culture of transparency and accountability, again, for continuous improvement within agencies. It also aims to improve the APS's position as a model employer.

As a model employer, we want the Australian Public Service to be one that not only listens to but addresses the thoughts, concerns and ideas of its employees. One of the ways that we are doing that through this bill is to enable decision-making to occur at the lowest appropriate classification. Being a model employer means that you create a culture of trust. Being a model employer means you support your employees. This recommendation was prompted by findings that decisions involving risk tended to be increasingly escalated upwards within the Public Service. This bill gives a counterweight to that tendency, requiring agency heads to implement measures that enable decisions to be made by APS employees at the lowest appropriate classification.

We have had a range of matters, which I think we'll speak to in a moment. I know the member for Curtin was the first but, particularly over the last 24 hours, was definitely not the last to raise questions about what else should be in this bill. We both had suggestions that there should be more in this bill, and we had suggestions that this should be postponed until after we have the report of the robodebt royal commission, because we do need to learn from past mistakes and prioritise our reform for the future. I just note that the Australian Public Service is a complex organisation. It's made up of tens of thousands of people working across dozens of departments and agencies. Reform of the scale and complexity that we need will take time and sustained effort. This is one part of the commencement of the APS reform agenda where we've sought, as best possible, to sequence and drive cultural and behavioural change in the APS over time, ultimately to ensure that we deliver better outcomes for government, for this parliament and for the Australian people.

The government believes that this bill delivers strong foundations for enduring change, locks in reforms that will stick, locks in reforms that will last and supports that enduring transformational change that the Australian public want to see when it comes to our public service. What we know is the challenges facing Australia over the coming decades are immense. The Public Service will continue to play an integral role in meeting the changing needs of government and the community with professionalism and integrity. The government's reform agenda is ambitious and will require sustained and structured effort over time. By amending the Public Service Act, this bill advances that agenda significantly and locks in important reforms which we hope will last for many years to come.

In my final moment, can I thank, appropriate for this bill in particular, all of the public servants who have been working on the government's APS reform agenda. This is complex. This is working across a range of different departments. It is taking in very complex inputs in terms of the Thodey review, the government's agenda, and some of the challenges that have come to light out of recent investigations and commissions. They have acquitted themselves incredibly well of that task.

I also thank those who have engaged in public service reform consultation. We've seen a lot of consultation and a lot of enthusiasm in terms of people who want to both share their insights as public servants and make sure that this can continue to be a fantastic career not just for people in our service today but also for people that we hope to choose to join the Public Service into the future. Our public servants are national assets. Our Public Service is a fantastic institution—an institution which we back through this legislative change and through our ongoing APS reform agenda. I commend the bill to the House.

The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity on the next sitting day.

Debate adjourned.

Across Australia, 16 per cent of Australian adults employ the services of a financial agent or planner—that's 3.2 million people. Millions of Australians are investing their hard-earned money and faith in financial advisors and planners. They direct the future of many people's lives and, importantly, their retirements. That's why it's so important that the amendments before the House pass through this place.

I want to reflect on how this bill assists first home buyers. In Tasmania more than 4,000 people are currently on the public housing waiting list. We are living through a deep housing crisis, made worse in no small part because of 10 years of inaction by those opposite. Young people are struggling to find affordable rents, and the dream of buying their first home seems like a distant dream that may never be achieved. Deputy Speaker Goodenough, as you'd be well versed, there was a bill before the Senate—and there will be another bill before the Senate before too long—that would build 30,000 new homes over the next five years. When you build more homes you increase supply. When you increase supply, you get more choice for renters. When renters have more choice, they have better options when it comes to choosing which rental they go into, and it brings the price pressures down. I say to the Greens in particular, who are really holding this up in the Senate: if you want real rent relief, pass the bill that will be before the Senate, because that is how you get it done. When you increase supply, you bring down price pressure, and you increase competition for quality tenancies.

Back to providing greater flexibility for first home buyers—that's what the government is doing through the First Home Super Saver Scheme. We are allowing people to fix mistakes as they go and to give them the best opportunity of success through the scheme. This is about empowering first home buyers to break into the market. I think back to the distant days of my youth. I reckon I would be a lot wealthier now if I had never made a mistake with my finances and future plans, but I'm human, and so mistakes did happen. The same happens to our young people today, and they deserve the opportunity to correct their financial mistakes so they don't gravely impact their future.

In reflecting on the benefit of schedule 1 to this bill, the product intervention orders made by ASIC against predatory short-term credit and continuing credit contracts just this month is testament to the work that can be done with the passage of this bill. Payday loans, instant money loan schemes and other short-term and continuing credit loans are too often nothing but predatory marketing campaigns targeted at the most vulnerable Australians. These quick money schemes sound like a good idea when people are strapped for cash and needing quick assistance, but in reality they can keep people poor. The high level of fees, interest and repayment rates mean people are constantly chasing their tail, trying to keep up the repayments, and some people fall into the trap of using multiple lenders, which can exploit loopholes to skip credit check processes required of financial institutions. The Albanese government is cracking down on these predatory lenders to protect Australians.

Debate interrupted.

Life has only become harder for Australians since Labor came to government. Energy bills are skyrocketing. Grocery bills are soaring. Rents are rising rapidly. Mortgage repayments just keep going up and up, and more and more people are going on to floating rates, and the pain from that is clear. Interest rates have risen 11 times under this Albanese Labor government. A family with a typical $750,000 mortgage in south Western Sydney is now paying more than $20,000 a year. Under this government, inflation is still running rampant at six per cent. Make no mistake, prices have risen sharply in the last 12 months. Roy Morgan Research has found that, in the three months to June, 1.43 million Australian households were at risk of mortgage stress. The NAB has revealed that two-thirds of Australians under 50 say our rising cost of living is their biggest cause of stress, and Lifeline is reporting that 80 per cent of its calls now relate to cost-of-living pressures.

At a time when Australians are working harder than ever to keep a roof over their head and to put food on the table for their families, the Treasurer has decided to release a new report, Measuring What Matters, which forms part of Australia's first wellbeing framework. What could be in this new report? Presumably up-to-date data on how Australians are faring in Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Maybe some up-to-date data on mortgage stress and people dealing with those 11 rate rises. The ability for Australian families to pay their mortgage is a pretty good measure of wellbeing at the moment, but not for this government. In this so-called wellbeing report, the Treasury is using data to measure mortgage stress that ends in 2020, before Labor's 11 interest rate rises, before Labor's year of inflation, before the COVID-19 pandemic. The Treasurer has scribbled his signature on a public document which claims housing serviceability for mortgage holders has improved. The doctor of spin has lived up to his title yet again, for a doctor of spin he is, a Treasurer who is so out of touch he's using two-year-old data to try and get a picture of how Australians are faring with their mortgages. This is despite 280 submissions, six months of taxpayer funded consultation and $157 million in extra funding to the Treasury portfolio for this so-called better data in the last budget. This is a deeply embarrassing report and is, frankly, insulting to Australians struggling with a cost-of-living crisis and cuts to mental health services under Labor.

Instead of addressing the cost-of-living crisis in Australia's collapsing productivity, the Treasurer has released a document telling Australians they have never had it better. But Australians know this isn't true. They know it isn't true. They feel it isn't true every single day at the bowser, at the checkout and when they check their bank account. Australia's economy is grinding to a halt on Labor's watch. We have one of the highest core inflation rates among advanced economies. Economic growth is half the OECD average. In fact, in the last National Accounts it was 0.2 per cent for the quarter, barely above zero, and we have negative GDP per person. We have record collapses in labour productivity, negative 4.6 per cent in the last year. We have never seen this before, since data has been kept on labour productivity. This is the highest collapse in real wages on record. There's higher spending, higher interest rates, higher taxes, with an extra $185 billion of spending across two budgets, with broken promises on taxes, on super, on franking credits, on small businesses. There have been sneaky increases to personal income tax through brake creep, through raging inflation. And this is a Treasurer who would love to get rid of the stage 3 tax cuts that address exactly that issue.

We know that the priority of this government should be the economy; fighting inflation—priority 1, 2 and 3. Instead, we have a government focused on everything else. A typical Australian family is $25,000 worse off than when Labor came to government. This Treasurer doesn't need a wellbeing report to understand Australia's wellbeing; he needs a reality check. The Treasurer has confirmed that Labor's approach to the economy is out of touch and out of date.

Wednesday night will be a very special night for the Northern Territory, particularly for Territorians descending on Canberra. In the Great Hall, the fourth Facing North showcase will demonstrate best of Territory food, business know-how, culture and creativity. On Wednesday, from 6 pm, if members and senators have the chance, I strongly you drop in. This is the event that is often referred to as the premier event in the parliamentary calendar. Facing North is a reminder of the social, economic and strategic opportunities that are bound for our nation in the Northern Territory.

To name just one opportunity, I recently visited HMAS Cairns and witnessed the $240 million upgrades underway to allow the home porting of Arafura class patrol boats by 2030. At the same time, in Darwin, the impressive $515 million ship lift project is moving ahead at a rate of knots. It will be capable of lifting vessels up to 5,500 tonnes and will enable larger vessels in the defence, energy, pearling, fishing and coastal cruising industries to be serviced in Darwin. The project has now completed site investigations, unexploded ordnance clearances, navigation simulations, hydraulic marketing, market testing and is almost done with NT and federal environmental approvals. The facility is due to be completed in 2025.

The federal government is also investing $1.5 billion in planned equity to build common user marine infrastructure at the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct. This project provides a pathway to a decarbonised economy by helping clean energy industries like blue and green hydrogen and also the facilitation of the massive Sun Cable solar project.

I'm also looking forward to the outcome of the regional maintenance provider north tender process for Darwin. The regional maintenance centres are a key element of the government's continuous naval shipbuilding and sustainment program. These Commonwealth led sustainment centres will plan and deliver maintenance on Navy surface fleet capabilities. The contract will be awarded next month.

As I will say in my remarks at Facing North on Wednesday evening, the NT is defined by the vibrant cultural riches of its human mosaic. One small but important example of this is the brilliant Tiwi Island art on the tie that I am wearing now. Having the highest proportion of First Nations people in any state or territory is just one reason the Voice is so crucial to the Northern Territory.

I am reminded of a time when I learned once more the importance of listening to First Nations people regarding policies that affect them. When I was serving in Arnhem Land with the Australian Army's NORFORCE in 2007, we were escorting the intervention's child health check teams around to the communities of the north. We were mainly doing logistics, but, in effect, due to the lack of any meaningful consultation by the Howard government, we were acting as cultural brokers as well.

The divisive intervention narrative meant that people were hiding their children for fear that they would be taken away—taken away again. Yolngu soldiers explained this fear to me as their patrol commander. I listened and asked them: what should we do? They said, 'We should write a big sign in the Yolngu Matha language.' And we did that. Do you know what happened? It immediately put that community at ease. Mums started bringing their children into the health centre for health checks. I'll never forget that important lesson—the lesson that answers came from listening to, not talking at, First Nations people. That is the point of the Voice.

My introduction to the Garma festival was also in 2007. It was at Gulkula, outside of Nhulunbuy, on the escarpment overlooking the Arafura Sea. I learned a lot working in Arnhem Land, and I've kept attending Garma, as I will at the end of this week with the Prime Minister. The referendum responds to the generous invitation by First Nations elders from right around our nation who came together in the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart. Voting yes is a vote for national unity, reconciliation and better outcomes.

Over the winter break in my electorate of Deakin we celebrated the 2023 Deakin Community Awards. The award night recognises some of the local community's most dedicated, hard-working and respected individuals. These unsung local heroes, who selflessly give of themselves to make our community a better place, were able to be recognised on the night, and it's clear that our community would not be where it is today were it not for the type of people that we recognise in the Deakin Community Awards. With the exception of a brief interlude during the coronavirus pandemic, we've run the Deakin Community Awards since 2014, with the occasion growing in its audience and number of nominations from across the Deakin electorate. Each year we get an incredibly diverse range of nominations across all ages and backgrounds, with winners coming from community organisations that span local sporting clubs, churches, schools, service organisations and charities. All of these nominations are broken down by individuals in the youth, open and seniors categories as well as a separate group category.

The awards night is a real community effort, with a local school usually hosting the event. This year it was at the George Wood Performing Arts Centre at Yarra Valley Grammar. The Australian Children's Choir, which is based locally, in Mitcham, opened the night wonderfully with the Australian national anthem and the song 'Throw Open Your Shutters!'. We ended the night on an equal high with the East City Sound Chorus, who closed the night with 'This Is the Moment' and a very touching rendition of 'I Am Australian'. On the night, we were able to recognise the efforts and achievements of 67 individuals and 18 local groups in front of a crowd of more than 600 people.

Not only do the Deakin Community Awards serve as an opportunity to recognise the efforts of our local heroes and those who do so without wanting any recognition; it also serves to inform the many locals of the range of activities that take place right in our community and that in many cases they may not have heard of personally. Every year attendees come to me afterwards amazed at the support offered by local groups like the Croydon-Mooroolbark Lions Club, who fundraised $50,000 to provide financial support for other community events, or Biala Ringwood, whose tireless team of volunteers provides support and respite for families with young special needs children. Our locals are amazed to learn that someone they know quietly volunteers their time to ensure the running of the local sporting club—like Craig Douglas, who has served the Heathmont Cricket Club and Heathmont football club for over 40 years, or a young person like Sienna Grylls, who, despite still being in school, dedicates herself to coaching students as young as three Brazilian Jiu Jitsu at XFC Bayswater. These are just a couple of examples of the many people who make Deakin such an incredible place to live and who are recognised at the awards.

It would be remiss of me not to specifically mention the winners on the night. In the youth category, we celebrated joint winners Brodie Smith and Abbey Whitaker, who each volunteer as junior coaches for Ringwood Little Athletics. Both Brodie and Abbey are incredibly motivated coaches, with Brodie being recognised in particular for his ability to communicate with young athletes—they have tremendous respect for his advice—and Abbey already capably developing programs tailored to individual athletes.

In the open category, Jen Eslick was recognised for her tireless service to St James Netball Club. Jen has served on the club committee for years while also coaching two teams and managing the development of other coaches and umpires.

The Maroondah unit of the Victorian SES was recognised as our group winner for their unwavering assistance to the Maroondah community during times of crisis.

Finally, our seniors winner and overall winner on the night was Andrew Brownlee. Andrew has served the Rotary Club of Maroondah for over two decades, holding the key roles of president, secretary and chair of the international committee, and in the last 12 months alone he spearheaded a campaign to deliver 100,000 emergency meals to Sri Lankan children impacted by the economic crisis in that country.

The efforts of all the nominees never cease to impress. I'm so proud of our community and everybody recognised on the evening.

Last April I was very fortunate to be part of a terrific delegation travelling to Dharamshala to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The delegation was an all women's delegation led by my colleague the member for Macquarie; the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet, Senator Janet Rice from the other house; and another colleague of ours from the House, the member for Mackellar.

We met with members of the Central Tibetan Administration, including Sikyong Penpa Tsering and a whole lot of his cabinet members and people in his government. As Deputy Speaker of this House, I was especially pleased to meet my counterpart from the Tibetan administration. Their deputy speaker is also a woman. Dolma Tsering Teykhang was her name, and I was delighted to be able to meet with her. The delegation had an opportunity to discuss geopolitics with the Dalai Lama for almost an hour: the challenges, the opportunities and the important establishment of services and cultural and political institutions that are meeting the interests of Tibetans who are now living in all parts of the globe. We visited many community facilities, including a school, the Tibetan Nuns Project, medical centres, policy think tanks and aged-care homes. It was a really terrific opportunity to look at all aspects of life in exile for the Tibetan people. It was fabulous to see how younger Tibetans were continuing to work very hard at maintaining and celebrating Tibetan culture wherever they might live on the globe.

All of those that we met expressed their concern for fellow Tibetans in China. Of particular interest, there were a number of issues that were raised that I know Australia has also been raising in international forums around the issues of surveillance, the removal of children and families through Chinese boarding schools, and the alleged DNA data gathering that is taking place. The United Nations has warned that some one million Tibetan children are now affected by the policy of removing children from families and placing them into state-run boarding schools. It's a policy that's not utterly unfamiliar to Australians, where we have seen First Nations people experience removal from family in an effort to disconnect from culture and language. It was an issue that really resonated with many of us in this last delegation. It was something that I know the Sikyong raised when he was here in Canberra during the last sitting fortnight in this parliament. It's an issue that causes great sorrow for him, his government and indeed many of the Tibetan people across the globe.

The Australian government has been clear and consistent in raising our serious concerns about human rights in Tibet publicly, privately and directly with China and in multilateral forums. We're deeply concerned by reports of the detention of Tibetans for peaceful expression of political views, and the suppression of Tibetan religious expression, excessive security measures, mass-surveillance, restrictions on travel and China's policies on Tibetan cultural rights and heritage. I'll be continuing, as I know other members of the all-party parliamentary group will, to advocate for the rights of Tibetans whose educational, religious, cultural and linguistic freedoms are at risk. These are matters that we follow both at home and abroad. I know in my electorate of Newcastle we've got a small but very strong Tibetan community. I do want to give a shout out. I had a fabulous time celebrating His Holiness's 88th birthday the other week, and I thank the Newcastle community for that.

I want to do another very quick shout out. There's a very big, important match that's about to take place, and I just want to say a very big 'Go the Matildas!' and 'Congrats' to the Australian Diamonds, who just won a massive game, meaning that they remain undefeated in the Netball World Cup. Women's sport is on the world stage, as it should be.

I rise tonight to talk about the Portland offshore wind farm. This is an incredibly important discussion that the community wants to have, and it wants to have it with the government. We had Minister Bowen visit Portland two weeks ago to announce this new offshore wind farm zone and say that consultations were beginning. The visit by Mr Bowen was at very short notice. I think I was given less than 24-hours notice, and the community was not given a lot of notice either.

As a result of the visit and the declaration of the consultation on the offshore wind farm zone, there was a meeting which was called last Wednesday in Portland at the yacht club. The meeting was called for three o'clock that afternoon, and, much to the surprise of the organisers, was jam-packed. It was overflowing because people have some serious concerns that they want to see addressed and serious questions that they want answered. Minister Bowen has kindly agreed to see me next week, and I will be asking a group of three or four people who attended that meeting from the various sectors of the community to come along so that they can put their concerns to Minister Bowen directly.

A concern that was raised, for instance, from one local fisherman was about what would happen to birdlife. Through many years of fishing, he has recorded all the different ocean birdlife, and he has it numbered at 63 different varieties of seabirds. He would like to understand what impact an offshore wind farm would have on birdlife in the area. There is also the southern right whale, which is protected in and around the coastline of south-west Victoria. So another issue that was raised was about what this would mean for the southern right whale and what environmental protections would be put in place for the southern right whale, given that it is a protected species.

There were also concerns raised about the Bonney Upwelling, which takes place off the coast of Portland and is one of the most important seasons for whale breeding. We have one of the most significant breeding grounds for whales just off the coast of Portland, and people want to know what protections there would be and would be put in place for that important whale breeding that takes place. When you think about the gaps that occur between the towers that potentially could be proposed as a result of this consultation, there were concerns about what they would mean for squids and longline fishing. All these environmental protection considerations obviously need to be taken very seriously when it comes to the consultations on this offshore wind farm. There are also the local surfboard riders, who want to know what the impact would be—although they told me not to say this too publicly—on one of the best surfing spots in Victoria. There are also those that glide around the area, whether it be paragliding or other forms of gliding. They want to know what the impact would be.

Obviously, south-west Victoria, onshore, does more than its fair share when it comes to wind farms. Serious concerns were also raised about our vista. Onshore, I think we have more wind farms than any other area in Australia, and then you double that up with offshore wind farms. How much do we have to do when it comes to renewable energy provision? All those questions need to be answered by the minister. I thank the House.

At the age of 86, Isabel Boxshall of Torquay, from my electorate of Corangamite, has offered us a glimpse into the pressing issue of affordable housing that affects countless Australians across our great nation. Ms Boxshall has lived through decades of change and challenges, and she carries a profound empathy for her fellow Australians and recognises why it's so important for parliament to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. Ms Boxshall is one of many local constituents who have recently contacted my office to voice their absolute frustration in response to the coalition and the Greens blocking our housing bill. She shared her story with me, explaining how she has opened her heart and her home, welcoming her granddaughter, Kirsty; and her four great-grandchildren to live with her, to give them a safe and secure place to call home. Kirsty lost her rental home earlier this month when her landlord opted to renovate. Despite holding a well-paying job, she has been unable to find a home for her family. It's been a real struggle for Kirsty.

Unfortunately, not everyone has a nan like Ms Boxshall who can step in and help. This story is a powerful reminder that the dream of a safe and secure home should be possible for every Australian. As a nation, we have an obligation to ensure that every individual, regardless of age or circumstance, has a place they can call home; a place where they can feel safe, cherished and supported—after all, adequate housing is a basic human right. The Albanese government recognises this, and that's why we are taking concrete steps to address this critical issue by reintroducing the Housing Australia Future Fund and related housing bills in the lower house.

This is not a mere political gesture; it is a steadfast commitment to making a real difference to the lives of people like Kirsty and countless others, who deserve better. Our proposed $10 billion housing fund will create tens of thousands of new homes, providing a beacon of hope to Australians in need. The fund will allocate 4,000 homes to women and children impacted by family and domestic violence, or older women at risk of homelessness. The fund will channel resources to address acute housing needs, including a $200 million allocation for the repair, maintenance, and improvement of housing in remote Indigenous communities. An additional $100 million will be dedicated to crisis and transitional housing for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness. A further $30 million will also be invested to build housing and fund specialist services for veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness. This is a vital piece of work. Ms Isabel Boxshall's story is a poignant reminder that we must act with urgency, compassion and determination to build a brighter future for all Australians.

In closing, I urge the Greens and the coalition to stop blocking affordable housing and to join us in supporting this crucial legislation. Do not let the perfect stand in the way of the good. Let us come together, united in purpose, to create a fairer, more compassionate and inclusive Australia—a nation where the dream of home ownership is attainable and where no-one, especially not our older Australians, faces the uncertainty of housing insecurity. Because this is not about politics and statistics; this is about real people facing real, fundamental challenges. Without a home, it's difficult to function and get ahead. Ms Boxshall knows this; her granddaughter, Kirsty, knows this; and her great-grandchildren know this. So let's embrace this bill. Let's get on with it and help thousands of Australians just like Kirsty who deserve our support right now. Thank you.

House adjourned at 20:00

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 10:29.

I want to congratulate our local players who represented WA recently at the 2023 Softball Australia Under 14 Regional Championships in Queensland. The reason I'm so proud is that, out of the 16 players representing WA, nine of them are from our very own South West—that's over half the team. Henry McIntosh, Brodi Haddon, Kobe Penman, Koby Stewart, Bailey Scott, Thomas Smith, Jeffrey Haddon, Will Cottam and Jet Willis all tried out earlier in the year, and they impressed the selectors enough to make up the majority of the squad, and that's great. The championship ran from 3 to 7 July in Redcliffe, Queensland, with each game bringing a challenge, an opportunity and excitement for the boys.

Their first game was against the New South Wales Slammers, and the nerves were high. Unfortunately, they lost 14-6, but they kept their focus and moved on to play Victoria, where they came out swinging, taking down Victoria in a thrilling 14-6 win. Day 2 was affected by rain, and their game against the ACT was rescheduled for later, but a match against the New South Wales Strikers went ahead, with the boys having to admit defeat 4-11. On day 3, our guys defeated the New South Wales Sliders in a nail-biting game, which ended in a 9-8 win. Their second match for the day was also a close one, and they lost by a whisker to Queensland Metro. Their training proved invaluable and, at this point, so did their coaching, because fatigue started to set in. But they stormed into day 4 with a 21-1 masterclass over the ACT, and they jumped to third place, booking a game in the finals against Queensland Metro Storm. Day 4 saw the team play and win three games—a momentous effort for this group of players. And this saw them play, on the final day, the first semifinal against Queensland Metro Storm. WA pushed the Queensland boys hard, but ultimately they went down 6-14, and this wrapped up the tournament for them and WA.

Again, all of us in WA are really proud of these boys—all of them—who took part. But I'm particularly proud of those nine young 14-year-olds from the south-west of WA who were part of this, the extra effort that they had to go to to get to this stage, the way they participated, the way they were fair in everything that they did and the way that they carried themselves throughout the competition. They've done WA, their families, themselves and the competition proud. I also thank all the parents, coaches and support staff, and acknowledge that some of the boys are so excited about this that they're already training again and looking forward to Victoria in January. Congratulations to them all.

I rise this morning to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Margaret Cockman OAM, who sadly passed away on 26 July at the age of 92. I'm sure that many other members in this House, particularly the member for Pearce and the member for Moore, will also speak about Margaret and her incredible legacy across the northern suburbs of Perth. Margaret's immeasurable influence on Wanneroo and Joondalup and her passion for helping the community were absolutely unmatched. From an early age, she demonstrated a heart for serving her community, and that led her to dedicate more than five decades to working in local government.

Without Margaret's passion and determination, many associations and community organisations that exist today in Wanneroo would not be here. She was actively involved in, and founded, several groups that continue to operate and make a difference to the community, including the Wanneroo Agricultural Society and the Wanneroo and Districts Historical Society. Her long list of achievements included being awarded, in 1990, a Medal of the Order of Australia for her community work, and in 2001 she was awarded the Centenary Medal. In 1995 she was made a freeman of the City of Wanneroo for her work in service to the community since 1946.

I got to know and befriend Margaret through her role as the patron for Wanneroo-Joondalup Relay for Life, which for the past six years since I was elected the member for Cowan I have had the pleasure and the opportunity of hosting and MC-ing along with the member for Pearce, who was at the time the mayor of the city of Wanneroo, and, of course, Margaret, who was the patron for Relay for Life. I thoroughly enjoyed getting that opportunity to see her at least once a year at the Relay For Life, throughout that time really admiring her for the heart and the immeasurable passion that she had for her community.

Margaret never married or had children, but was the loved sister of Sam, now deceased, and Avril, and she was the great-aunt of 13. To all her family and all her friends: I wish them the very best and send them my deep condolences.

Labor is operating under the false apprehension that Australia's prosperity can be achieved through higher taxes. We are already familiar, under this government, with the new taxes and the changes they have made. We had the truckie tax. We had the carbon tax. They have removed the low- and middle-income tax offsets. But I rise today to talk about another tax imposed by this Albanese Labor government: what is basically a backpacker tax. From 1 July, the government has made changes so that the visa for backpackers, the working holiday-maker visa, increases by $130. That brings it up to $640. They've also made changes that will ensure that backpackers no longer have the option to extend their visa for a second or third year.

Now, these visas are vitally important. They're part of a suite of people-to-people links that we have with around 40 different countries in the world, allowing young people to come travel in Australia and also undertake part-time work and study. They are the ones who serve us in cafes, serve us at restaurants. They pick our fruit, our vegies et cetera. They make a contribution. In horticulture alone they represent about 80 per cent of the workforce. The contribution of backpackers constitutes around $3 billion to the Australian economy every single year.

This government has made a deliberate decision to tax them because it believes they are easy targets. The taxing hyenas of the Labor Party are more than happy to go after the easy prey of the backpacker. But this impacts regional economies. It also impacts metro economies. Sunshine Coast is highly reliant on tourism and also agribusiness. It impacts us. It impacts supply and demand. On the supply side, take Argo, a fantastic restaurant in Buderim. They are highly reliant on these backpackers. The fewer that come in because taxes rise, the harder their job is. It makes it harder for that fantastic restaurant to serve its own patrons, its own people within the Sunshine Coast. It impacts the ability of businesses because right now they're screaming out for more staff. It impacts supply. It also impacts demand.

Take another business in my electorate: Fraser Island Adventure Tours. They run tours in the Sunshine Coast and Fraser Island. They too are going to be impacted because they won't have the backpackers to spend money. They're reliant on them. (Time expired)

Bubbling away in the heart of Prahran is a hub of expression and creativity. It sits at a confluence of song, dance, theatre and the circus arts. From its centre radiate career pathways, like spokes on a wheel, for young people unswayed by perennial doubts about the future of the arts, their financial viability or their value to society. The Albanese government, like these young artists, harbours no such reservations about the arts—in fact, quite the opposite. When our arts minister refers to artists as essential workers in the company of nurses, you can appreciate what the arts actually mean to us. We spurn romanticisation of the arts, as it belies the very real challenges facing the sector and our artists, including insecurity of conditions and pay, issues we intend to address by the newly formed Creative Australia and in our national policy, aptly termed Revive.

Patrick School of the Arts attracts students from all over Australia, who combine study with the creative pursuits, including song, dance and theatre. The students work incredibly hard, knowing that, thanks to the reputation of the school and the character and skills training they acquire, their pathway will lead to bigger arenas. 'I have learned how to be resilient, tenacious, gracious and caring, as well as how to kick my leg and sing a top C,' said one student. Glowing testimonials from alumni to me tell a story of ambition turned into careers under the mentorship and professional networks of Todd and his team.

The National Institute of Circus Arts teaches young people from across Australia to soar. Under the watchful gaze of their teachers, many of whom have worked in the circus sector, these students fly, tumble and twirl, in many cases towards international careers lasting decades. Teachers return to NICA to give back, thereby building an institutional memory that money can't buy. To make ends meet, NICA provides a range of fun after-school programs, facilitated by its own students, in state-of-the-art facilities.

I am pleased that our government has provided ongoing funding. We, like those in the Victorian government, see great potential in this precinct, and we are going to do everything we can to facilitate that. We recognise the challenges faced by artists who straddle the fault line between sole trader/entrepreneur and worker. They seek autonomy but require the financial security to thrive. We are determined to improve their working conditions to enable long and fruitful careers. It's in our national interest to do so. To our emerging artists: you are agents of wonder, desperately needed in our frenetic, transactional lives. Given the success of these graduates, we should celebrate them. (Time expired)

Small businesses in my electorate of Capricornia continue to lead the way in the development and manufacturing of state-of-the-art equipment. In fact, manufacturing is one of the top three employment industries in Capricornia. With almost 3,000 people working in the manufacturing sector in the Rockhampton region alone, Capricornia is a powerhouse in this industry.

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit local small business CQ Soil Testing, who sought the expertise of another local Rockhampton company, GJK Contractors, to design and create a one-of-a-kind drilling rig. CQ Soil Testing have over 20 years of experience in the sampling and testing of soil and are recognised as one of the best laboratories in Queensland. Starting from a shed in his backyard, the managing director, Scott Walton, quickly outgrew his shed and now has offices in Mackay and Hervey Bay. His company specialises in the investigation, sampling and testing of soil and groundwater and in geotechnical work for the domestic industrial, government and mining sectors. Scott is a passionate Central Queensland local, and he and his team recently opened their soil testing laboratory in Rockhampton, which has seen further skilled job creation for the region.

With the demand for their services growing, it was time to invest in a new mobile geotechnical drilling rig that is fully mine compliant. Rather than seeking an overseas company or even one elsewhere in Australia, CQ Soil Testing worked with local manufacturing business GJK Contractors to design and manufacture their new rig. In an Australian first, GJK Contractors and CQ Soil Testing created a rig that not only has the ability to operate three different functions but also can operate each setting at the same time. With the rig's unique safety specifications, it will allow the team at CQ Soil Testing to tap further into the strong mining industry right across the state. The Minerals Council of Australia predicts that the need for coal will grow by 24 per cent by 2030. Businesses like CQ Soil Testing are readying themselves for the mining boom that will be created by the push for renewable energy.

As the shadow assistant minister for manufacturing, I'm thrilled to see Australia's skills in creating new and never-before-seen products. Our great country has provided. We have the ability to design, develop and produce what is needed to keep our nation at the forefront of emerging technologies. What excites me even more is seeing local small businesses support each other and work collaboratively to bring an idea to life. Well done, CQ Soil Testing and GJK Contractors, on this wonderful milestone for your businesses.

As the chair of the Bangladesh country group as part of the Australia South and Central Asia Parliamentary Network, I am honoured to rise in this place and speak about and celebrate Australia's longstanding, fruitful relationship with Bangladesh. For our parliament, this is an especially important time to highlight the good that our parliamentary networks and country groups do in fostering engagement between members of our parliament and the legislative bodies in places across the globe, along with their diplomatic representatives within Australia. This week is particularly noteworthy, given that, later today, chairs, co-chairs and vice chairs of our parliament's country groups will meet with heads of mission and diplomats from all over the world within this building. It is an event co-hosted by the member for Bean and the Embassy of Paraguay in Australia. This event is a fantastic idea, and I thank the member for Bean for doing his part to make it happen.

Earlier this year I had the pleasure of attending an event in honour of the 51st anniversary of Bangladeshi independence and their national day. This took place not long after I became chair of their parliamentary group, and I, wanting to play a small part in extending and deepening our country's friendship with Bangladesh, looked further into how deep that friendship goes. The timing of doing so, on the eve of attending Bangladeshi independence and national day festivities, was poignant indeed, for Australia was, after all, the fourth country to recognise Bangladesh's independence, and the first in the developed world to do so, back in 1971. From that time, as two nations, we deepened that bond through many shared and common values and ideals. As time went on, we tapped into those values and ideals and shared many things, like a love of sport, particularly cricket, of course. We grew our economic ties through education and trade, and we shared our peoples. I am particularly proud to say that our country is home to a vibrant Bangladeshi diaspora, many of whom hail from my state of South Australia and indeed my own electorate of Spence.

On the subject of trade, one can look no further than the flourishing Bangladeshi textiles industry. In fact, only a fortnight ago, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association held the Bangladesh Apparel Summit in Melbourne. It was an honour to speak with a number of their delegates in Canberra later that week. I sincerely thank His Excellency M Allama Siddiki, Bangladesh's high commissioner to Australia, for his gracious invitation that night and for extending a hand of friendship to our country group. Along with our vice chair, Senator Dean Smith, we look forward to many more opportunities to engage in dialogues about what makes our countries special. By working to further strengthen our bilateral relationships, both of our nations become more prosperous, as we have done so through successive decades of positive engagement, trade and cultural exchanges.

We all learn from history. It has something to teach us all. One from history who inspires me is the great Yorta Yorta man William Cooper. Cooper was an advocate for Indigenous Australians, and he understood the age-old adage: 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' Cooper was a man who never left this continent, but he protested outside the German consulate after Kristallnacht. In a world that chose to look away from the horrors of Nazi Germany, an Aboriginal man chose not to. He understood that, even among the powerless, even when at times it feels like we cannot make a difference, truth and light have extraordinary power. That's why, in this place, we call to mind the Uighurs, the Kurds and the Yazidi people, thousands of whom settled in Australia after the ISIS genocide. We should always stand with people who yearn for freedom.

Over the past year, the world has witnessed the waves of protest in Iran, with young people, women and older people standing against one of the most despotic regimes in the world—a regime that is getting worse. My electorate has one of the largest Iranian communities in the country. Persians are a timeless and ancient people. In my community, they're contributors and they're hardworking people devoted to family and community. That's what makes them great Australians. But as a community they're in pain.

A few months ago, a small group of Iranians visited me in my electorate office. They brought with them a large, hardback volume somewhat like a volume of an old encyclopedia that we might have put in our bookcases. Within that book were the names and images of thousands and thousands of people who have been executed. The spirits of tens of thousands, if not more, spoke out from the pages. Their families speak out. Their crimes cannot be hidden.

The Iranian people have great champions in this parliament, particularly on our side of this House. Earlier this month I was joined by one of those champions, in Senator Claire Chandler, who spoke to our Iranian community. About 150 members of our community participated in the meeting. Senator Chandler is a hero to the Iranian diaspora, fearlessly championing the rights of women who live in fear. The coalition stands with the Iranian diaspora. We remain committed to listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. It's in our national interest to do so. The IRGC operates at home and abroad. The Australian Signals Directorate has confirmed that guard affiliated actors have targeted Australian organisations with ransomware attacks. The IRGC is a known supporter of listed terrorist organisations like Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria.

Although the Iranian protests are not currently front of mind, we must keep bringing light to this subject. To this end, I'm writing to the Prime Minister, asking that Australia mentions Iranian human rights abuses in his address this year at the UN General Assembly. As a liberal, free and democratic people, we have an obligation to stand with those who seek such freedoms as well. We believe in the four freedoms that underpin human dignity: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. That's what the Iranian people are standing for, and that's why we must always stand with them.

In April this year, Vladimir Kara-Murza, a leading opposition member, was sentenced to 25 years in prison in Russia. The charges of which he has been convicted are described as treason, spreading false information about the Russian army and being affiliated with an undesirable organisation. I stand to draw this to the attention of this place and the Australian parliament in my capacity as the member for Macnamara and a friend of Bill Browder, who has been a central figure in the movement to enact global Magnitsky justice legislation. It is another regrettable example of Russia's rejection of democracy and human rights. Instead of acting as a responsible global citizen, we have seen years of behaviour by Russia, a member of the United Nations Security Council, that disregards the foundations of the global rules based order, culminating in its illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine.

But, within its borders, Russia continues to perpetrate state actions that undermine basic rights and freedoms. Kara-Murza, sadly, joins many others who have been imprisoned for speaking out against the Russian government. These include opposition leader Alexei Navalny and others such as Alexei Gorinov and Ilya Yashin, all of whom are presently incarcerated for articulating their position on the invasion of Ukraine and for their commitment to a free and open Russia.

In 2020, Kara-Murza gave evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in their inquiry into targeted sanctions to address human rights abuses. He was a critical voice amongst many who advocated for the establishment of a Magnitsky-style sanctions regime in Australian law. This inquiry helped to develop a consensus across the parliament, and eventually the former government initiated legislation, which passed in 2021, to strengthen Australia's sanctions regime. Australia continues to use targeted financial sanctions and trade measures, currently numbering over 1,100, including Magnitsky sanctions, to undermine and hold Russia to account for its aggression against Ukraine.

Kara-Murza and so many other figures in Russia have been imprisoned or targeted for exercising their rights, rights that we often take for granted. It is vital that we use our rights and our platforms to support people fighting for democratic freedoms, wherever they are. I close my remarks today by echoing the words of Mr Kara-Murza as he was sentenced in court in Moscow: 'I know the day will come when the darkness over our country will be gone; when the war will be called a war and the usurper will be called a usurper; when those who have ignited this war will be called criminals, instead of those who tried to stop it. And then our people will open their eyes and shudder at the sight of the horrific crimes committed in their names.'

As many in the chamber know, I'm proud of my community in the cities of Fairfield and Liverpool. At every opportunity I bring a focus on the amazing people who share their extraordinary life experiences and challenges, and I shine a spotlight on their talents, skills and achievements.

It was therefore an honour to have the US Ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy, visit the electorate of Fowler and pay a visit to some of our local schools. Her first stop on this visit to south-west Sydney was Cabramatta High School. Its students reflect my multiculturally diverse and inclusive electorate of Fowler, with 96 per cent of the students coming from non-English-speaking backgrounds. During our visit to Cabramatta High School the ambassador enjoyed her first-ever lion dance performance, and at the end of the show we were given a quick lesson in the art of lion dancing. She and I struggled to hold the lion's head and body as we attempted to dance. I think a few more lessons are in order! After catching our breath, we were excited to join a group of school leaders from the SRC, the student wellbeing team, the Red Cross committee, the environment committee and the young women's group for an insightful dialogue on how these student groups have built strong connections with one another.

Our next stop was Governor Philip King Public School in Edensor Park. Governor Philip King Public School is a thriving learning hub for our future leaders, where 90 per cent of our students are from non-English speaking backgrounds. Governor Philip King Public School is one of the few schools in Fowler that runs the parliament session school program, and it has done so for 32 years. It's one of the schools that I hope our Speaker will get to visit this term. We were invited to participate in the school's mock parliament session, and we had the honour of witnessing the great minds of the year 6 students in action. The ambassador was impressed and delighted to see the quick wit, clever questions and understanding of the Australian democratic system on display from the students. Somewhere in between dragon dancing and school parliament, the ambassador and I shared a traditional Vietnamese lunch and a leisurely stroll around Freedom Plaza in Cabramatta. I was able to share a snippet of our community's refugee history, which I am sure she's very well-versed in.

It was a privilege to host a representative of the President of the United States in my humble electorate of Fowler. I also want to thank Lachlan Erskine, Principal of Cabramatta High School, and Jason Corcoran and Glenn Hamilton, Principal and Deputy Principal of Governor Philip King Public School, as well as the students and staff who made the day possible. They managed to ensure the visit went smoothly despite it being the first day back at school. Ambassador Kennedy, I'll welcome you back to Fowler any time.

I rise today to acknowledge a significant milestone that has been reached in our Wollongong community. On Saturday, the Wollongong community came together to celebrate and congratulate the Parsons family on 130 years of caring for our community. H.Parsons Funeral Directors have served the Illawarra community, and it has remained a family owned business, since the company's doors opened in 1893. H.Parsons was opened by Henry Parsons, who operated the business for 40 years until his death in 1933, when his 12th son, Alfred Reuben, or 'Pop' Parsons, acquired the company. His son John started at the company in 1950, at the age of 15. Alfred passed away in 1990 knowing that the family legacy was safe in the hands of his son John and his grandsons Mark and Alan.

Although often underacknowledged, funeral directors in our communities undertake their work with the highest level of discretion, compassion and sensitivity. They are integral to the fabric of our society in ways like nurses, doctors, police officers and schoolteachers are. On Saturday, the state member for Wollongong, Paul Scully, and I met the lovely Margaret Parsons, who was quite the entrepreneur back in 1990, when she started serving refreshments after funeral services—the very first in the industry to provide this service. She spoke of how her late husband, John, looked around the Christmas party each year and was so proud to employ so many good people. She said their business was only as good as their employees. I wish Alan, his son Anthony and all the team at H.Parsons Funeral Directors the very best as they continue to care for our community.

As the member for Cunningham, I cannot rise today and not acknowledge that today is the 121st anniversary of the Mount Kembla mine disaster, which remains the country's largest-ever mining accident. The incident occurred on 31 July 1902, when a large section of the unsupported roof in a goaf collapsed with considerable force, pushing air and methane gas into the main tunnel. The rush of air and gas stirred up the coal dust clinging to the roof and walls of the mine. The coal dust made contact with an exposed flame light.

The gas ignited and, combined with the now airborne coal dust, set off the initial explosion that blew down the main tunnel with such force it destroyed everything in its path. The disaster killed 96 men and boys, some as young as 14, leaving behind 33 widows and 120 fatherless children. The disaster left its mark on our Illawarra community and drives our mining community to this very day to operate the safest mines in the world, to the highest environmental standards. The 96 candles ceremony in Windy Gully will be held this evening from 6.30 pm to commemorate the evening of the mine disaster anniversary. I encourage all members of the community to attend and remember.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) the importance of income management in keeping vulnerable communities safe, particularly women and children, and in protecting the integrity of our social security system;

(b) the Coalition's commitment to listening to affected communities;

(c) the Coalition's plan to reinstate the successful cashless debit card;

(d) that since the abolition of the cashless debit card, there have been reports of widespread abuse of alcohol and drugs, and other anti-social behaviour; and

(e) the Government's decision to spend over $217 million in taxpayers money to launch the so-called SmartCard; and

(2) calls on the Government to join with the Coalition in committing to re-establish the cashless debit card.

This motion today refers to what I consider to be one of the worst decisions taken by this Labor government—a decision to alter income management arrangements in vulnerable communities that we know were working, to abolish the cashless debit card. This has wrought dysfunction and violence in communities that can ill afford the sort of antisocial behaviour that we now see.

The history of the cashless debit card has been told many times before, but it's always good to reflect on it. Vulnerable communities consulted with the government and invited the government to put in place these arrangements, to ensure that there was less antisocial behaviour; that there were fewer drugs, there was less alcohol and less domestic violence; and that more welfare money was used on the essentials of life. There are many things in this place that we can disagree on. There are many things that there is confected disagreement on as well. But the one thing that surely everybody can agree on is that vulnerable communities with more drugs and more alcohol are worse places.

So what did the Labor government do when they were elected as one of their first measures? They abolished the cashless debit card, which quarantined a portion of welfare money for the essentials of life—food and groceries—rather than being used and frittered away on alcohol, drugs, gambling and a variety of other expenditure that did not assist communities. At the time, I was very forceful in my criticisms of the government and said: 'Surely you know the consequences of this decision. Surely you know that unleashing drugs and alcohol into vulnerable remote communities is going to make domestic violence worse. It will mean that fewer children go to school and will mean that fewer children go to school having had breakfast, because there won't be food in the house.' The Labor Party wantonly closed their eyes and ignored that. I know there were some people on the Labor side who shared my concerns but were not able to publicly state them.

So where are we now? Utterly predictably—you didn't need to have a PhD or be a Rhodes scholar or Nostradamus to know this—the antisocial behaviour we are now seeing in communities around our country who had the cashless debit card is getting worse and worse. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Australian people will hear from speakers after me who will talk about their communities—whether those communities are in Western Australia; in Ceduna, in South Australia; or in other parts of the country—that are seeing the antisocial behaviour that was there before the cashless debit card re-emerge, the domestic violence rates skyrocket and the neglect of children skyrocket, all because the Labor Party, in an ideological pursuit, abolished the cashless debit card.

This motion calls on the government to re-establish the cashless debit card—we know it worked—and to swallow their pride, and to stand up to the hard ideological Left of their party that is opposed to any form of income management, and to say that, in the end, the interests of the children in those communities and those children's right not to be neglected and not to be abused are more important to the government than their ideological pursuit. That's what this motion is all about. The cashless debt card should be reintroduced. The Labor government should admit that they got it wrong. They will be applauded not just by me but by those vulnerable communities that are suffering under this very shameful decision.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I am very pleased to be speaking on this motion today to highlight how devastating the Liberals and Nationals' cruel and unfair cashless debit card was on so many communities right across the nation and, in fact, why we got rid of it. Despite it being abolished, this motion contains the coalition's plans to reinstate the cashless debit card and, as we know, roll it out right across the country. We know that that was their agenda originally—they wanted to extend it to all pensioners and all people on income support, including those on the age pension. We know that that was their agenda.

The fact is that the cashless debit card was wrong and destructive. We went to the election last year with a commitment to abolish the card, and that is exactly what we have delivered. The cashless debit card was just an ideological obsession of those opposite. It was not a policy supported by evidence. It was the Liberals and Nationals obsession with privatised welfare. They knew all along that there was no evidence or data that the card actually worked, but they kept it in place and wanted to extend it.

I have previously outlined many instances where people's lives were actually destroyed by being forced onto the card, how it stigmatised them and made their lives incredibly difficult. They could only use the card at certain restricted locations and it was often declined. People couldn't buy basic food or groceries. Many people were unable to pay their rent and were forced into bankruptcy. Many were unable to make car repayments and buy school uniforms for their children. The fact is that the cashless debit card stripped away many people's rights and in many cases their dignity.

I've outlined many cases to the House, including Kerryn, a mother of five, who said it was a nightmare being on the card and she was unable to provide for her children. There is the case of Joslyn, who, at 65 years of age and on a disability pension, was forced onto the cashless welfare card just because of where she lived. She had always managed her own finances and was very much worse off because of the card.

We said enough is enough and we called time on the punitive cashless debit card, because our approach has always been to fund things that actually make a difference. Of course, our October budget allocated $217 million to abolish the cashless debit card program and fund support services. Some $158 million—over 70 per cent of this funding—will be used to support services for people in those cashless debit card communities. I remind those opposite that this is funding for services that they failed to provide for those communities. We've extended those support services and are funding new ones because we've been told that these are the services that will actually make a difference to those communities. We understand how important it is.

There has never been any evidence to show that the cashless debit card actually works. That's the reality of it—there's no data or evidence. A lot of evaluations, inquiries and audits have repeatedly shown that the card just did not work. In particular the Australian National Audit Office released in 2022 an audit of the performance of the card and found once more a lack of evidence to demonstrate any success at all. Despite this message being delivered twice—the ANAO's first report in 2018 and the second one in June 2022—the former government refused to listen again. It tells you everything you need to know about those opposite and what they think about the disadvantaged and most vulnerable people in our community. They completely ignored all of the evidence in all of those many reports.

As I said, we know the Liberals and Nationals are obsessed with their idea of privatised welfare. They are obsessed with this idea of this cruel and punitive cashless debit card. They're not interested in addressing the real issues that Australians are concerned about. They're only committed to reinstating the cashless debit card. They've said that so many times.

We also do know that they had secret plans to expand the card if they actually were successful at the election. We know this through many means, particularly through the very excellent reporting by Niki Savva in her book Bulldozed. She states there that there were three policies agreed to by Morrison's Expenditure Review Committee ahead of the budget. The first was to expand the cashless debit card. There it was in writing. We have seen other ones. They kept that decision secret when they were asked many times about the expansion, but we know that that was their plan. If they were back in government, that's precisely what they would do. They would bring it back in and expand it to all income recipients and pensioners, including those on age-care pensions.

This card has been incredibly destructive, and the fact is that privatised welfare does not work. Nothing highlights that more than the disaster of the cashless debit card. So many people—hundreds of them—told us how it devastated their lives and took away their dignity. Well, we acted and we got rid of the cashless debit card because we listened to communities and provided support to those who needed it the most.

I'd like to begin by thanking my friend the honourable member for Deakin for bringing this important motion to the House and for his longtime advocacy for vulnerable communities whilst in government and now in opposition. Over the parliamentary break, I was very pleased to spend some time in the East Kimberley. It was just so wonderful to catch up with business and community leaders and to attend the annual Kununurra Agricultural Show—like no other show in the world, let me tell you. This is a very proud, tight-knit community that resides in one of the most beautiful parts of the world. This is a community of doers; whether it's tourism or the agriculture industry, there is no shortage of new ideas or new projects being developed.

The East Kimberley has been severely impacted by the floods that were in the Fitzroy River region and later on in the Northern Territory over the past 12 months. There were no tourists and no food, but somehow this community picks itself up and works together to put the community back together. Sadly, some of Australia's most vulnerable people live in the East Kimberley region. Unfortunately, the East Kimberley faces serious problems, particularly surrounding alcohol abuse, child neglect and general antisocial behaviour. Since the repeal of the cashless debit card, we have seen these problems escalate. As I previously informed the House, with the cashless debit card, parents would keep a credit at the school canteen for their children's lunches. Now, with the abolition of the card, this is no longer occurring, resulting in children going hungry at school. This is getting reported time and time again. Locals have stressed to me that Labor's decision to abolish the CDC has directly correlated with a spike in alcohol-fuelled violence and crime. This is backed up by data that showed increased reporting of drinking, gambling, stabbings, domestic violence and school nonattendance in the weeks after the cashless debit card was scrapped. These impacts are, sadly, not unique to the East Kimberley and have also been felt in other trial sites in WA, South Australia and Queensland.

The cashless debit card program, introduced by the coalition, was simple and effective. Cardholders would receive 80 per cent of their welfare benefit as a credit on a card, which couldn't be used to spend on alcohol, drugs or gambling, and the remaining 20 per cent was available to be withdrawn as cash. Over 17,000 participants were given the choice to move to the Albanese government's new smart card, which is essentially a $217.7 million rebrand of the cashless debit card. I'd say that's not that smart. What about you, Member for Deakin? Or they have a choice to switch to 100 per cent being deposited in their bank account. Honestly, the Labor Party is completely out of touch. Did they think that people suffering from serious alcohol and drug abuse would choose to have less funds to be able to feed their habit? This is serious. This is not a laughing matter. But, honestly, they are completely out of touch. Not surprisingly, the number of people on income management in the East Kimberley has been reported to have plunged from 1,209 when it was compulsory to just 43 participants. This is alongside the 43 in the Goldfields, 22 in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and 19 in Ceduna in South Australia. Keep in mind that this is despite the government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new scheme during a cost-of-living crisis.

The Department of Social Services acknowledges that income management and improved control of recipients' finances help people to stabilise their lives so that they can better care for themselves and their children. So it beggars belief that the Albanese government has chosen to abolish the cashless debit card. The cynic in me believes that this decision was less about supporting vulnerable Australians and more about pleasing and potentially grabbing votes from the city elites. It is absolutely shameful. I call on the government to get its priorities right, reverse its reckless action and reinstate the cashless debit card. Get on with supporting our most vulnerable communities, particularly in remote and regional Australia and particularly for my constituents in the East Kimberley.

The opposition get to pick any topic they like for private members' motions. They can literally bring a debate on anything. They could have chosen cost of living, energy or aged care. They're supposed to try and pick things that put political pressure on the government, but they choose today to bring a debate on the cashless debit card. Well, bring it on. Let's talk about the Liberals' policy to roll out privatised income management nationwide. You've got to wonder: is there a mole in the opposition's tactics committee that they think this is a good debate that's somehow going to win them votes if they bring it on? They were no good as a government and they're no good as an opposition. This is a terrific topic to debate. You've voluntarily brought a debate where we get to talk about your ongoing efforts. It's in the motion. You've now nailed your colours to the mast. You've finally fessed up. They wouldn't talk about it before the election. They kept it a secret. But there it is in the motion: if re-elected, they want to bring back privatised welfare. They want to bring back forced income management. They want a national rollout of the cashless debit card.

Niki Savva revealed in her book that there were three policies under the Morrison government that were approved by them before the election through their Expenditure Review Committee but that they kept secret. One of them was the national rollout of the cashless debit card. They knew what the broader Australian community would think about this, so they didn't want to tell people before the election. They get very sensitive when you call out the fact that it would have included, to quote the former Prime Minister's words, 'all social security recipients'.

An opposition member: That's not true.

That includes all pensioners, including age pensioners. They say that's not true. Well, why would they have introduced legislation into the House to force age pensioners onto the card if that's not exactly what they wanted to do? They are leftover ideologues still banging on about a failed policy.

This motion could be framed and hung on a wall in glass with a plaque under it saying 'Disinformation'. They talk about 'the coalition's plan to reinstate the successful cashless debit card'. Instead they should admit that there was no evidence to back up the claims or to support the dodgy privatised scheme. In June 2022 the Australian National Audit Office released their second audit report, which said:

The CDC program extension and expansion was not informed by an effective second impact evaluation, cost-benefit analysis or post-implementation review.

Those opposite promised for years in the Senate that they would do the review and find some evidence, but they never did, and the Auditor-General rightly called them out for it.

They should also stop selectively quoting from the 2021 University of Adelaide study. In fact, that study found that any reduction in drug and alcohol use could not be attributed to the cashless debit card. They never quote that bit of the study, the actual conclusion, do they? They could try quoting from the University of South Australia and Monash University study which showed that the card had 'no substantive impact' on crisis or emergency department presentations. They don't like quoting the actual results of studies.

The other part of the motion, which is fundamentally disinformation—and we heard it from the previous two opposition speakers—is 'the government's decision to spend over $217 million' on the SmartCard. Well, we make no apology for abolishing the cashless debit card. We're doing exactly what was promised. Some people, of course, have volunteered to be on the SmartCard, with upgraded technology, and it's made a positive difference to people's lives. They can shop at the market again, getting cheaper fresh food with cash. They can buy second-hand goods. They can go-to restaurants again. They can give cash to their grandkids. But what is this $217 million they talk about? Well, $158 million of it, 70 per cent—

Opposition members interjecting—

They don't want to listen; they just want to yell. Seventy per cent of this so-called expenditure is to support services for people in the former cashless debit card communities. It's not, as they try to say, for some great big procurement and great big card; it's money going into communities—the communities of Cape York, the Goldfields, the East Kimberley and Ceduna.

So, really, those opposite have a choice. They need to put up or shut up. Either they support the investment in those communities or they go out to those communities and tell them that they don't support the investment, and they stop running this disinformation campaign. They should apologise to the thousands of Australians who were forced onto this card in the first place. They should promise to stop supporting privatised welfare and to never again force pensioners onto income management. They should admit that they're running a tawdry little debate, conflating issues of race and stigma about drug and alcohol and the old bogeyman of people on welfare, with the issue of privatised welfare, which is their real objective. All of us want to see reductions in harm in all communities, but this is not the way to go about it.

Talk about misinformation and disinformation! It was never proposed that pensioners would go on the cashless debit card scheme. That was a Labor lie at the last election. I'll tell you some facts about the cashless debit card, because I've been up to those communities, I've been to the Northern Territory. Once the cashless debit card was abolished, we saw domestic violence incidents go up by 57 per cent, and assaults went up by 48 per cent in those communities. Anecdotally and statistically, we were being told that the cashless debit card worked, because kids were getting fed, they were safe at home and rents were being paid. Labor comes in here and says, 'It's forcing people. It's terrible that we're managing their money.' How much do you spend in your weekly shopping bill? Do you have 20 per cent cash at home? I certainly don't. I wonder if the members across—

The member for Bruce, on a point of order?

I think, in the form of address, that remarks should be addressed through the chair, rather than 'you', which I avoided.

I uphold the point of order.

Apologies, Deputy Speaker. I was addressing the public of Australia. I should address you directly. My point is that this cashless debit card was working. Since it was abolished, you have seen that the rates of crime have risen, children are not safe at home and food is not going on the table.

In my community alone, I have had people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, speak to me, saying, 'It's a good idea. We should have it in our communities. It helps us. There will no longer be the threat of a man standing over a woman saying, "Give me your money"'—because that is exactly what happened. That is exactly what happened in these communities and what continues to happen in other communities, where grandparents are having their money taken from them by their children and grandchildren. They would like to see the cashless debit card, because they have to hand over the money because of the fear. You hear stories about kids being returned who are clinging to the legs of welfare officers, because their communities are awash with drugs and alcohol. So to suggest that the cashless debit card was something evil—it was doing good in those communities. It was helping those communities.

We see that, because of ideology, Labor has put in a watered-down version. Well, ideology hurts. Ideology hurts people, and bad policy hurts people. I look forward to hearing from the next speaker from our side, the member for Hinkler, because it was implemented in his electorate and he will tell you that it worked. But now we see young kids being abused, being unsafe, woman being unsafe, and crime spiralling out of control because Labor thought, with its ideology, that this was a wonderful, unique world where 'we'll give people the money that they earn on welfare'. Then they go off. It is a fact. Men go off, buy drugs, buy alcohol and inflict pain on the community. That is not me saying it. That is not me making it up. I go back to the statistics, which are conveniently ignored by Labor across the floor. Domestic violence crime rose by 57 per cent. That is women suffering. That is children suffering because of this ideology, because of an election promise. Labor should be ashamed of themselves because they took it to an election and they are now hurting the people in those small communities who need the help the most.

I rise to talk about the abhorrent cashless debit card that those opposite keep on pushing onto the most vulnerable Australians. This was not a policy supported by evidence, nor was it in the best interest of the communities that were affected by it. The cashless debit card significantly limits the freedom of individuals without sufficient or reliable evidence to show that it works or is justified. Despite all of this, the Liberals continue to push for an extension of the CDC trials. This leads me to question the values of those in opposition. They focus on the idea of empowering people to take agency and make the best decision for themselves, and yet they restrict freedom via the CDC. Which side of the fence are they sitting on?

Additionally, they came up with this policy in an attempt to change behaviours associated with addiction, but what is abundantly clear is that that has been unsuccessful and, even worse, dehumanising. Issues such as alcohol abuse in remote and rural Australian are complex. Using a blanket approach towards such issues will only stigmatise and institutionalise those affected. According to an ACOSS report, 75 per cent of people who were forced onto the card did not change their behaviour in relation to alcohol, drugs or gambling, and 49 per cent of those affected by the CDC said their lives have become worse since the introduction of the program. The results and feedback of the CDC illustrate that social and health issues need to be addressed with a broader approach. Furthermore, more than three-quarters of people that were subjected to the CDC identified as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. However, the CDC fails to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people control over the policies that affect them.

What we are seeing here is a shameless, selfish obsession that the Liberals have with their idea of the privatised, punitive cashless debit card—so much so that, instead of addressing the real issues Australians care about, like the cost of living, which the Albanese government is focusing on, the Liberals recommitted to reinstating the cashless debit card in Mr Dutton's budget reply speech earlier this year. This tells you everything you need to know about what those opposite think of the disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our community. I tell you what: if the member for Deakin is so bent on the reintroduction of the cashless debit card, perhaps he might trial it first in his own electorate and see how that goes.

This is why our government has abolished the cashless debit card. Our approach has always been to fund things that make a difference, and abolishing the cashless debit card has made a positive difference for many people's lives. If a person decides for themselves that some form of income management works for them then that should be an option available to them, and that is where the smart card is made available for them. But that is an option, not something enforced upon them, and that is the difference.

The October 2022 budget allocated $217 million to abolish the CDC program and fund support services, and over 70 per cent of this funding will be used to provide support services in CDC communities—services those opposite failed to provide. To quote Rebecca, a former CDC participant who was forced on the card, the abolition was time to rebuild what people like her lost from being put on this card. Another former CDC participant, Shelley, can finally shop at markets again and take the kids to the show, and people like Lisa can look forward to being able to take their family out to restaurants again for a family meal. Let's take this opportunity to actually listen to what vulnerable communities are saying and deliver justice and support for those affected by the CDC.

The first point I'd make is this: the biggest cashless debit card trial site in this country was my electorate. One of the reason we put that trial in place was that we have multigenerational welfare-dependant people in their thousands. We also have an area which is not predominantly made up of Aboriginal communities, unlike some of the other trial sites. I always love to hear the diatribe from the member from Bruce and I thought that I'd do a couple of quick comparisons. The member for Bruce's electorate has a median income for the year of $86,944; in my electorate, it's just $58,396. Approximately five per cent of my community identify as Aboriginal people, and in the electorate of Bruce it's 0.6 per cent. The idea that he would stand here and rave about something that he has no knowledge of, a community he is not a part of, a community which supports the cashless debit card extensively—not only through research and polling but through two elections. It's more than 60 per cent supported because it works, and that is the fundamental reason we put it in place.

My community want change. They want change and they saw that change with the CDC trial. Of course it was difficult, it was tough policy and it made some challenges in some areas, but we dealt with them. We actually had people in place to provide support. We put up millions of dollars of additional support through the CDC trial, which actually made a difference. One of the greatest challenges we've had is that, locally, anyone—any business, support agency and person who was working with people looking for housing—who put their nose up in the public arena was absolutely belted, particularly online, from activists in Sydney, Melbourne and places where they simply have no impact on the outcomes in my region. I can understand why they don't want to go on the public record. I met with one just a few weeks ago and I won't name them for obvious reasons, but they're involved in placing people in housing. When the CDC was in place, their rent roll was paid, which meant they were able to pay landlords and maintain people in accommodation—people who desperately need it. And now it is not being paid.

We hear from those opposite that they're going to spend some $300 million plus on a referendum for the Voice in this country. But they wouldn't listen the voices of the people in the community who were overwhelmingly supportive, from Aboriginal and Indigenous agencies through to people who are frontline service providers. We have lived and breathed this for years, and the reason these people continue to support it is that it works.

We hear about data and statistics. Well, look at your own local plans that you've issued just this year, which clearly identify that these things are challenges. We have enormous amounts of individuals—far more than we should—who utilise alcohol as a crutch and abuse and drink at high levels. That is in your statistics from the local plan that you have put out. And by 'you', I mean the Labor Party—I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is something which, of course, I am incredibly passionate about, as a local member. We hear about privatising welfare. The Labor Party has the same card with the same provider and the same bank, but with $217 million of additional expenditure. At the time of estimates earlier in the year, in my electorate there were 22 people on it, and that has increased enormously to 31. We now have 31. The allegation from the Labor Party is that the coalition privatised welfare. But the Labor Party uses the same provider, the same bank and the same card with the same people, but it has changed colour; it is now blue.

This is the one of the issues that people stop me on the streets in my electorate to talk about, because people support it. I have lost count of the number of grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins and parents who said to me, 'Keep going, because this has made a difference for our kids.' We saw an enormous reduction in youth unemployment. The police, once again, can't go on the record, but every time you talk to them they are supportive, because it works and they want to see change.

But we see, under this government, simple, idealistic commitments against things which don't sit with the Labor Party's ideologies but are supported locally. Why won't you listen to local people? Why won't the Labor Party listen to my community, who have supported this for years? They understand what the challenges are. They know this is not a silver bullet. They know that this won't change everything overnight. But they want to see change. It's the reason they send me to this place: to deliver change for them. These are tough but necessary policies. They will never be a silver bullet, but I'm very pleased that Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson and the Leader of the Opposition, has committed to a national rollout of the cashless debit card, because it works.

The motion moved by the member for Deakin refers in paragraph (1)(b)—I assume ironically—to 'the coalition's commitment to listening to affected communities'. We're here today talking about the cashless debit card, which, not exclusively but overwhelmingly, was placed upon Indigenous communities. There were some examples of Indigenous communities that wanted it, but overwhelmingly it was implemented to and on Indigenous communities, and we have a former minister of the former coalition government—one who has been quite vocal about his opposition to the Voice—putting in a motion 'the coalition's commitment to listening to affected communities'. It is rank hypocrisy for two parties that are opposing the Voice to Parliament to suggest that they listen to Indigenous communities.

In May of 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart was signed by over 250 people among some 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates to Uluru, who were chosen by an exhaustive process across the country, a democratic process of selecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to meet at Uluru to say: 'Where to from here? Where to for reconciliation? Where to for closing the gap? And how can we be listened to? How can we be a part of reconciliation and closing the gap?' I know that the members who are in the Federation Chamber as I speak all know what's in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It's not clear to me that, were there any members of the coalition in this chamber, they would know what is in it. The Uluru Statement from the Heart includes this line:

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.

Its final stirring paragraph says:

In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

Every single member of the coalition that stood up and professed to support the cashless debit card because they want a better future for Indigenous communities and passionately—and, I think, in many respects truthfully—stood in this Chamber and said they want to be able to address the issues that are affecting the communities that they represent has said no to a Voice enshrined in the Constitution, which is what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities asked for. So they come into this Chamber and they try to get the House to note 'the coalition's commitment to listening to affected communities' while taking every opportunity to run every bit of misinformation and disinformation and every overtly or implicitly racist argument, with tropes that don't belong in public debate in this country and haven't for decades, and simultaneously they want to cry their hearts out because of the disadvantage that exists in Indigenous communities.

Just last week, we had the Productivity Commission, not necessarily known as a woke organisation with progressive policies, hand down its Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap: draft report. The executive summary says this:

It is too easy to find examples of government decisions … that do not reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's priorities and perspectives and that exacerbate, rather than remedy, disadvantage and discrimination.

And the Productivity Commission notes that 'a legislated Indigenous Voice to Parliament in South Australia, legislated Treaty and Truth telling processes in Victoria and Queensland, and the upcoming referendum to change the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice' are initiatives which 'may result in new decision-making and accountability structures that could provide a further catalyst for changes to the way governments work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.' The coalition should listen. (Time expired)

I thank the member for Dunkley. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Government's announcement of a new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new social rental homes across Australia;

(2) acknowledges the Government's commitment to an ambitious housing agenda which will boost the supply of all housing, with more social housing, more affordable housing, more homes to rent and more homes to buy, and includes:

(a) establishing the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee three months early, helping regional Australians purchase a home with as little as a five per cent deposit and avoiding paying Lenders Mortgage Insurance;

(b) widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, making up to $575 million available to invest immediately in social and affordable rental homes, with projects already under construction as a result of this funding;

(c) working with the states and territories through the National Housing Accord and National Cabinet to support planning and zoning reforms to contribute to the aspiration of building one million new homes over five years from 2024, as well as investing $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024 as part of the accord—matched by the states and territories;

(d) further establishing the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide expert advice to Government on housing supply and affordability;

(e) delivering the largest increase to Commonwealth Rent Assistance in more than 30 years, with a 15 per cent increase in the maximum rates;

(f) increasing the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's liability cap by $2 billion to provide lower cost and longer-term finance to community housing providers through the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator;

(g) providing tax incentives to encourage more build-to-rent developments to boost new supply in the private rental market;

(h) further providing an additional $67.5 million of funding to the states and territories to help tackle homelessness challenges as part of a one-year extension to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement which provides $1.7 billion a year to the states and territories for housing and homelessness services; and

(i) expanding eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme, which helps people purchase a home sooner by reducing the deposit they need to save; and

(3) condemns the Opposition and the Australian Greens for blocking the Housing Australia Future Fund, and notes that every day of delay is $1.3 million not being spent on social and affordable housing for Australians who need it today.

Renters are doing it tough. Unit rents in Victoria alone have gone up 22 per cent in the last year. The median rent now in Victoria is sitting at $500 a week. Tough decisions are being made by renters and other people around the country, around the essentials of life—decisions around food, around fuel, around clothing and around skills acquisition.

But there is a group that is actually doing it tougher than renters, and that is homeless Australians—the invisible homeless Australians. I was a frontline doctor for 26 years, and every single day my ward rounds would start in the emergency department. Why? Because I would be seeing homeless Australians every single day. They came from all walks of life. Initially, they were older men; then I started seeing older women; then it became young men and, finally, young women. I recall vividly a young woman in her 20s who had addiction problems and was also a sex worker, who was homeless and came into hospital with an infection in her foot. She left after 24 hours, for lots of reasons. These people without a roof over their head lead chaotic lives. I always kept a box of antibiotics by the bedside in anticipation that these patients would leave hospital, because I knew they would likely abscond. She left and went out into the unknown. I couldn't fix this problem as a doctor, but I'm now a parliamentarian and I certainly am committed to doing something about it.

We have, in Australia, an acute imbalance between supply and demand, and there is one cure that will fix both the rental crisis and the homelessness crisis, and that is: increasing supply. This is basically economics 101. We know that new dwellings in Australia peaked in 2016-17 but have been falling ever since.

We also know that this housing crisis did not happen overnight. It has been years in the making under successive Liberal governments, with whom we had a decade and who basically kicked the can down the road. They sounded good, but they didn't actually do any good when they were in office. So we now have a problem which is of a magnitude that requires multifaceted solutions that involve all three tiers of government, because, as we speak, there are at least 230,000 households who are on social and affordable housing waiting lists.

The problems with respect to social housing were brought home in a recent roundtable I hosted in my electorate with the Minister for Housing, Julie Collins, and stakeholders. These are some of the things they said: 'We need to be working in partnership with others. This is not about blaming people; this is about working together. You cannot address poverty without addressing the lack of affordable housing.'

We agree, and this is why we have an absolutely massive housing agenda. We have already committed $9.5 billion in the last financial year to social and affordable housing—the highest in Commonwealth history. That includes $2 billion, passed just a few weeks ago, to the states, in our Social Housing Accelerator. Victoria alone got $496.5 million and the minister is waiting now on site so that she can sign off on this and we can start to build those homes. We boosted the build-to-rent sector, which the Property Council estimates will contribute another 150,000 to 250,000 homes over the next decade. The Treasurer is leading the National Housing Accord, which aims to build a billion—I mean a million—homes from 2024. I wish it was a billion! We've expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme with another 50,000 extra spots. We've provided a $1.7 billion extension to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with the states.

In the last budget, as you know, we increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. This is designed to aid those patients that I looked after every single day. But we also have a piece of legislation, the Housing Australia Future Fund, which should not be contentious by any stretch but has become a fault line in this parliament. I have no idea why, but I suspect it has something to do with the piety of the Greens and the inaction of the Liberal Party, who had a decade in government and now have the temerity to write to our housing minister demanding that she does something about social housing while basically blocking this bill in the upper house. It makes no sense to me. We know that in Tasmania they are experiencing the highest acuity problems with respect to social housing, which is why we have negotiated in good faith with the crossbench and won the support of David Pocock, Tammy Tyrrell and Jacqui Lambie for this bill. It should be passed. It is unconscionable not to do so. (Time expired)

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

This is a laughable motion from the government—absolutely laughable. You would be laughing if it wasn't so serious. If you call it an agenda, which I think is a very kind description, the Labor housing agenda is an absolute tatters. It is in tatters. The member opposite spoke about waiting lists in Victoria. Who's been in government in Victoria for nearly 10 years, with the primary jurisdiction of responsibility over housing? Have the courage to criticise the Labor government. Have some courage. Criticise the Andrews government. Amongst their litany of disasters, housing is another. What we haven't seen under this government is any cohesive plan for housing—any at all.

Listening to the member opposite you'd think that it's all going swimmingly and that this huge agenda is seeing a blossoming industry of new housing, new first home buyers and reduced rents. It's exactly the opposite. What we've seen since this government has been in office is first home buyers down, new home starts down and rents up. We saw the comical million homes announced in the budget in October. You're already going to miss the target. I would suggest that you say to your whip, 'Take that out of the Labor talking points,' because the million-home target is already in absolute tatters. It's gone. Forget it. You will not meet that—not even lofty—target. We built a million homes over the previous five years. They can't even meet the business-as-usual of recent history, of a million new homes over five years.

Then the member opposite talks about fault lines and the Housing Australia Future Fund, which really is a Ponzi scheme—a money-go-round, confected arrangement to try and ensure that the spending is not on budget. What we have here is a situation where, had this fund been set up last year, we would have borrowed $10 billion, paid about $400 million in interest on that borrowing and put it with the future fund, and then it would have lost money in its capital. It would have lost more than $100 million of capital—not $1 for social and affordable housing. If you're fair dinkum you have to put the money in.

We see, belatedly, the Greens forcing the Labor Party to put an extra two billion dollars in, but what is very concerning about that extra two billion dollars in the accelerator is that the Labor government can't point to one single project or new home that will be built. I would never be a cynic, but—for the cynics in the room—we have great concerns that that money will just be subsumed into business-as-usual housing budgets within the states. Quite frankly, we've seen it before. Unless the government can point to specific projects, specific new dwellings that are being built, then basically it's a blank cheque for a state government, and God knows if anything will happen.

The Labor Party has to have a moment of reckoning. Are they going to be honest and upfront and basically outline the great limitations that they see in housing—that they can't really move the dial—or are they going to keep making these ridiculous claims of a million new homes over five years as if that's some ambitious target, when we built a million over the previous five years? It's just business as usual, and they're not even going to meet that target.

Finally, they should stump up and be honest when members opposite start talking about the Housing Australia Future Fund—the $10 billion fund, which is how they always start it, that may or may not spit out $1 for social and affordable housing. That's the truth. Each and every year, it may or may not send $1 to social and affordable housing. That's the reality of it. It was confected for one reason only. If it is an absolute raging success and everything I say is wrong and it does deliver its paltry 6,000 dwellings a year for five years, how on earth is that going to assist with the 1½ million people you're bringing into the country? Even if I'm wrong and you are going to build 30,000 new homes—well done!

That's right; blame it on migrants.

Will those 1½ million people live in those 30,000 homes? Have some honesty. Explain to your electorate where those people will live and, importantly, what the impact will be on Australians who will be finding it harder to have a roof over their heads thanks to Labor. (Time expired)

It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion that's been moved by the member for Higgins. I would like to commend the member for Higgins for so eloquently outlining our government's ambitious housing agenda, which will boost supply of all housing, with more social housing, more affordable housing, more homes to rent and more homes to buy. I think it would be of benefit to the chamber, particularly to those on the crossbench and to those in the other place, to hear what my community has been saying to me. Like many other members, I have had many meetings and discussions with housing and community organisations during the winter recess. There is a very clear and consistent message: people are doing it tough, and we need social and affordable housing. We have had 10 years of neglect, and here in New South Wales we finally have state and federal Labor governments who are keen to tackle this problem.

The level of engagement I have had with housing, business, community and social service organisations on this issue reflects the scale and the urgency of the problem we face, particularly in the Illawarra. Business Illawarra recently released their advocacy report Solutions to the affordable housing crisis in the Illawarra Shoalhaven. It was compiled by planning experts Judith Stubbs and Associates, in partnership with key regional experts. The report predicts:

… approximately 11,645 additional dwellings may be needed by 2041 … To maintain the existing regional average of 5.8% 3,925 dwellings would need to be social housing.

That's from Judith Stubbs and Associates 2023.

In June the Wollongong Homeless Hub reported that homelessness in the Illawarra has reached critical levels, with a 75 per cent increase in the number of people who sought help in the month of May. I have recently become a collection centre for nonperishable goods for donation to assist the homeless hub. The CEO of the homeless hub told ABC Illawarra on 22 June:

Every delay means that there's thousands of people without a home, so for every week that we go without any new legislation passed, then it means people are currently sleeping on the streets that don't need to be.

This is not a lone voice; it is part of a very loud chorus, including Narelle Clay AM, who is CEO of Southern Youth and Family Services. I spoke with Narelle recently at the opening of a new $10.5 million 20-unit social housing project in Warilla by Minister Tanya Plibersek. Completed by Southern Youth and Family Services, it is jointly funded by both the state and federal governments. Narelle asked me to convey the following message to the House:

There is a dire need for social housing everywhere—everyone knows this.

Southern Youth and Family Services just opened 20 new units in Warilla and already there are more applications than units—there is no problem filling them.

We could fill 200 more right now.

This was funded half by the Commonwealth and half by the State and we are so appreciative of this grant funding.

This is a way to support small and medium sized community housing providers to build capacity and contribute to solving this problem.

Housing is essential—it is a human right—not a way to make a profit and so we need our Government to do more.

The Federal Government has recently provided $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator extra funding to the states and this is well received and will make a difference.

But we need the funding for the Housing Australia Future Fund—it saddens me to know this is real funding and could be already out there assisting our communities and yet it is held up in the Senate.

No one in need of housing would agree with this delay. It's shameful and ludicrous.

Those were Narelle Clay's words. She also said:

I don't disagree with the sentiment that we need more than the Housing Australia Future Fund offers but we must start somewhere. We cannot have this stall while "politics is played". Get the funding out, let it start helping, and then let's get more.

We need many years of concerted capital and funding initiatives to address the homelessness and social and affordable housing crisis—let's get on with it.

The longer we delay the further we will see the consequences. Supported Accommodation and Homelessness Services Shoalhaven Illawarra, SAHSSI, have seen their waitlist again grow exponentially, with 131 women needing domestic violence support in Wollongong and 89 women, with and without children, needing a crisis bed. They have told me that it's not uncommon for women and their children to wait up to five weeks for a crisis bed. In this time they are either couch surfing, staying with family and friends, or, in desperation, returning to the perpetrator. (Time expired)

I thank the member for Higgins for bringing this debate to the House. When people think of Goldstein they think of wealthy bayside suburbs, but homelessness, like violence against women, is not determined by postcode. I hear currently that there are women sleeping in their cars in the car parks of Bayside, alongside major parkland in the electorate and in the car parks of our supermarkets. Research shows that most older women who are homeless had never been homeless before. As a social worker Jennifer McVeigh, who works in the homelessness sector in Melbourne, says:

They are not the rough sleepers seen sleeping on the streets but are the invisible homeless who are couch surfing or sleeping in cars.

Just last week I spoke to one such woman who was sitting on the cement outside Woolworths in Hampton. She told me she has been couch surfing for a year.

Property market analyst PropTrack reported that, in February 2023, only 17 per cent of all rentals listed on realestate.com.au across Australia were for properties priced at $400 or less per week. Three years ago, 43 per cent of properties were listed for this price. The standard calculation for rental affordability is 30 per cent of income. Anglicare took a snapshot of 45,985 national listings on realestate.com.au over the weekend of 17 March 2023 and found that only 162 of the properties were affordable for a single person on the age pension, that a single person on the minimum wage could afford only 345 of these properties and that a person on JobSeeker could afford only four of these properties. In Australia there are currently more than 172,000 women over the age of 50 on JobSeeker. None of them could afford private rental—I repeat: none of them could afford private rental.

The Victorian government is considering new rent controls, but the Real Estate Institute of Victoria says that this would lead to a loss of rental properties. These approaches need to be carefully calibrated in order not to create a new problem. Meanwhile, the number of people on the social housing waitlist in Victoria has increased from 35,392 in 2017 to 54,945 today. However, there's a growing cohort of older women who don't meet the eligibility criteria for social housing because they do have some money in savings.

The government's new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, which aims to create thousands of homes for people on social housing waiting lists, is welcomed, as is the intent of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which aims to build 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes over the next five years, with 4,000 reserved for women and children escaping domestic violence. I agree with the Greens that this is grossly inadequate and that there are aspects of the bill that need improvement, but community housing providers tell me that thousands of projects are being held up because the bill is stalled. The solution is to dramatically increase the supply of social housing and have better collaboration between all levels of government.

In one such example, the federal government, through NHFIC, the Victorian government and the community housing not-for-profit HousingFirst, have delivered the $76 million Halcyon village, building 152 affordable homes for people aged over 55 in Brighton East in my electorate. I was grateful last week to be invited by Diane to visit her picture-perfect apartment. HousingFirst also works with Bridge It, an organisation working in Goldstein and elsewhere to support people into refurbished accommodation in currently empty buildings, in an approach being driven by the goal of housing all Australian. Governments and agencies can work together to fix the problem if we park the politics.

I would encourage the government and the Greens to show that leadership and find a reason to compromise to allow the HAFF to proceed. The HAFF is far from perfect, as I made clear in my speech in the second reading debate and in subsequent correspondence and conversations with the housing minister, especially in relation to accountability and the adequacy of its capital base. But, the longer the Greens and the government keep shouting at each other, the longer thousands of people, many of them women, will have to keep couch surfing or sleeping in cars.

With that in mind, I am today calling for an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance by 40 per cent to provide real and immediate support to around one million households. This was recommended by the Henry review and is supported by the Grattan Institute. We must also address the drivers of homelessness for older women, the gender inequality and discrimination that make them vulnerable in the first place. We must apply a gender lens to housing and housing solutions.

Since coming into this place last year, and in my time as a councillor and mayor, I have risen countless times to discuss one of the most critical and pressing issues facing us in Australia, particularly in my electorate of Bennelong, and that is housing. Secure and affordable housing is a fundamental right that underpins the security and dignity of every individual and family in this country, and I know from my experience that the best way to address this crisis is for all levels of government to contribute.

For the first time in a decade, I'm so proud to be part of a federal government that cares about and is committed to delivering housing across the nation. A decade of inaction under the former Liberal-National government has left us grappling with significant housing challenges nationwide. The consequences of this inaction have been felt by many, and we cannot afford to have this inertia continue any longer. Our government came to parliament with a mandate to reform Australian housing delivery and with an ambitious housing agenda that will boost the supply of housing across the affordability spectrum. But, week after week, we go on without this crucial agenda being implemented because it is being blocked by the Liberals and the Greens political party, who have chosen to block more homes being built. This obstruction is detrimental to the constituencies they claim to represent and directly impacts the lives of countless Australians who are in dire need of stable housing today.

Our government has not only invested significant sums of money directly into housing but also put up long-term reform and innovative solutions for how we can increase the supply of homes across the country, working with every level of government and institutional investors to do so, because supply is what matters here. More homes equals fewer social housing waiting lists, more homes equals less pressure on rents, and more homes equals more options for people to buy.

However, the progress of our broader attempts to lessen the impacts of this crisis is all at risk due to the obstructions caused by the Liberals and the Greens political party. The delays caused by their opposition to our Housing Australia Future Fund mean that every day $1.3 million that could have been utilised to increase supply is not being spent. Numerous projects that could have provided housing solutions for vulnerable Australians have been indefinitely postponed due to the lack of this style of funding from the Housing Australia Future Fund. The community housing sector themselves say that between 8,000 and 12,000 properties are not under construction today because the fund was blocked in the Senate by the Liberals and Greens. Families and individuals who desperately need stable homes are now left in limbo, uncertain of their future, all while political parties go out and doorknock, telling people that the government isn't doing anything about this crisis. Can you believe it?

We need to recognise that the housing crisis is a multifaceted issue that requires comprehensive and bipartisan efforts. Our direct investment policies such as the social housing accelerator are but one set of solutions to this problem. Their effectiveness, of course, is hampered without the support and the establishment of the Housing Australia Future Fund.

We know that when there is bipartisanship and all levels of government work together, that delivers tangible results for the community. Just minutes away from my electorate of Bennelong, in Carlingford, a partnership between the Commonwealth, the New South Wales government and community housing provider BaptistCare has delivered 162 new social and affordable homes in Carlingford for hundreds of people in need. Ninety-seven social housing applicants will now be moved off the waiting list and into secure accommodation because we have these levels of government working together. These are the types of projects that the HAFF will fund. In Bennelong, over 2,000 applicants on the New South Wales housing register are waiting to be allocated housing. For a studio apartment there's a five- to 10-year wait. For any housing over two bedrooms, the wait is longer than 10 years. Projects like those in Carlingford are sitting idle because the Greens and the Liberals have decided to play politics. Their blocking undermines our collective effort when the nation elected us to address homelessness and create stability for those struggling to pay rent or find a place to call home. Their blocking of more housing makes an absolute mockery of their self-proclaimed title that they are the party for renters. It's like giving yourself a nickname: it's lame and it doesn't work.

Get out of the way. Support this bill. Let's get more houses out of the ground.

I thank the member for bringing this motion on. I think that everybody in this House genuinely wants to see more homes built and ensure that Australian people have a roof over their head. Whilst I do commend the member, we can't agree on the policies. And we have seen in my electorate alone housing go up by up to 60 per cent over the past 18 months to two years, and the influx of people from metropolitan areas into coastal areas—I mean, you can't them; it's beautiful. But it's caused homelessness to an extent that we haven't seen before. It is very sad when you see mums and dads with their kids in car parks, sleeping in their cars.

I've referred to the policy, and the first issue is the accelerator fund—$2 billion—which didn't form part of this budget, didn't form part of last budget and will be given to the states and territories effectively untethered. I've been listening to the speeches here today and in the past, and nobody seems to be mentioning that, over the past five years, states and territories have sold off over 30,000 social and affordable properties and haven't replaced what they've sold. They've only replaced 10 per cent of those 30,000 homes. Now, if we're about to give $2 billion of taxpayers' money to the states and territories, there must be some accountability. There must be a tether between that fund and seeing affordable homes built. Otherwise, we are going to see exactly what we've seen in the past: that those funds will be used for other things apart from social and affordable housing, and we'll continue to see properties sold off. That's the first issue with the accelerator fund. We do need to start calling out those states and territories for their failure to provide that housing for our most vulnerable.

Then there's the HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is $10 billion of borrowed money. This is what people don't understand. This isn't money that's coming out of the back pocket of the government of the day—money that we have in our coffers. This is borrowed money. We've heard the statistics, and it's economics 101. In the first year it will cost $400 million to set up the fund, without building one home, because the government is investing in equities. That's as much information as we have—in equities. Now, I'm no economist, but, sometimes, equities don't pay. If we invest this $10 billion of taxpayers' money—or borrowed money, which the taxpayer will then have to pay off; and we have no guarantee that these equities will pay—then there is a real risk that, year after year, there will be a deficit in the HAFF, a deficit in the $10 billion and not one home will be built. That is the problem with this policy.

Then we need to look at the 1.5 million people that this government intends to bring in over the next five years, while intending, through the HAFF, to only build 6,000 homes. Where are these people going to go? We don't have enough homes for our own citizens right now. Therefore, you have two failed Labor policies that will not see one home built in the foreseeable future. Labor has the audacity to criticise the coalition and the Greens—I don't often say that—when the policies prove to be inadequate, and that's what the problem is with these policies.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the insidious nature of foreign interference and the threat it poses to our democracy, businesses and to individuals;

(2) notes:

(a) ongoing reports of attempts by Cambodia's Hun Sen regime to infiltrate and monitor activity within the Australian community, particularly in the diaspora communities; and

(b) reports of potential money laundering in Australia by key figures of the regime; and

(3) expresses concern about these activities and calls on the Government to ensure that appropriate and thorough investigations occur into these concerning reports.

It's important that we remain vigilant to all threats to our national security and our sovereignty. The director of ASIO has described foreign espionage and interference as the major security concern to our nation, ranking even higher than terrorism in terms of the threat it poses. Australia has been a world leader in combatting foreign interference, but the fact is that authoritarian states continue to pose a serious risk and are actively working to divide our society through targeted disinformation campaigns, harassment, coercion and, in some cases, threats of violence. Russia and China have attempted to meddle in US and Canadian elections, with US and Canadian intelligence agencies assessing that these governments were behind online influence activities designed to undermine electoral processes and exacerbate social divisions.

But these two nations are not the only potential threats, and I'm sure that all members of this place were deeply concerned when it was revealed in August last year that Cambodia's Hun Sen regime had divided Australia into seven zones, each controlled from Phnom Penh by a high-ranking military officer or official in the regime, in which Cambodian Australians are rewarded for allegiance to the dictator or singled out for punishment as traitors. The network reportedly conducted surveillance and provided reports to the regime on local opponents of Hun Sen, including directly threatening violence against Cambodian Australians. This includes former Labor state MP for Clarinda, Hong Lim, and other elected representatives. Reportedly, the death threat list included the president of the Cambodian Association of Victoria and any Australian member of parliament or member of the Khmer community who opposed Hun Sen or his decision to hand over power to his son, Hun Manet.

When Australians are fearful of voicing criticisms about a foreign regime, we have a serious problem—one that cannot be allowed to stand. Mr Lim has called on the government to use its visa powers to restrict entry and use Magnitsky laws to target human rights abusers and super-rich cronies of the regime who use Australia as a haven. I have written to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs, asking them to ensure that every step is taken to investigate the ongoing claims of money laundering as well as the foreign interference threats.

I have brought this motion forward because I know that the diaspora community here in Australia has very genuine fears and concerns. As a nation, Cambodia has a tragic past, and the hope of democracy ran high at the Paris Peace Agreements in 1991. However, what has resulted is a form of play-acting democracy, with Hun Sen consolidating power in Cambodia over the past 38 years. Just eight days ago, the Cambodian People's Party claimed a landslide victory in national elections which have been described by critics as the country's least free and fair vote in decades. There were reportedly quite high levels of spoiled ballot papers at the recent election, despite the threat of legal action against anyone found to be spoiling their ballot in protest. The only party that was capable of challenging Hun Sen's rule, the Candlelight Party, was banned from the election on a technicality in May. A similar situation occurred with the then opposition party just before the last election. In February, Cambodia's Voice of Democracy, a local news outlet run by the Cambodian Center for Independent Media, was shut down by the Prime Minister. This sort of violent crushing of opposition, deliberate silencing of dissent and planned transfer of power is anything but democratic.

It would take more time than I have today to outline the long list of concerns that have been raised with me about the conduct of the regime and the impact on the community here in Australia. Through this motion, I implore the government to ensure that claims of foreign interference, criminal activity and money laundering are all thoroughly investigated. Australia must stand firm in its commitment to fair elections in the region and our insistence on the upholding of basic human rights and freedoms.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for McPherson. It is an important motion indeed, in the sense of the subject matter involved. Foreign interference can come in many forms, with many different shapes and sizes. It can be overt. It can be covert. Foreign interference and activities associated with it can complement other forms of espionage and attempts to sow disinformation. Foreign interference can be violent, whether the violence is real or implied. Foreign interference can appear innocuous or benign. It can be done with a smile. But there is nothing benign about it. It can find its way into many facets of Australian society, such as our universities and, in turn, our R&D, and into important, nationally significant industries. It can infiltrate social media. It can even try to pervert our democratic processes in Australia. This is, sadly, not something that is entirely unheard of in other parts of the world. I know we can all point to some very noteworthy examples of this.

As the emphasis of the member for McPherson's motion suggests, foreign interference can find its way into one of our many vibrant and active multicultural diasporas. The member for McPherson is no stranger to the subject of foreign interference, having been Minister for Home Affairs in the previous Liberal-National government, the Morrison government. As we know, the leader of that government opted to share the role of Minister for Home Affairs, alongside the member for McPherson, for the preponderance of the time she held that office. But the point I'm ultimately making is that the member for McPherson can appreciate the dangers posed by foreign interference in Australia and the ever-present need to have constant vigilance as a nation—a vigilance that begets our nation's ability to identify and then disrupt the activities of a foreign government, or those acting at the behest of one, that threaten our sovereignty and not only threaten the safety of people in the multitude of Australia's multicultural communities but also attempt to impede them from conducting themselves in the manner that anyone in Australia would expect to have every right to do, such as participating in free political discourse.

I note that the member for McPherson's motion refers particularly to Australia's proud Cambodian diaspora. Australia is home to thousands of people whose country of birth was Cambodia, with many more descendants of people born in Cambodia in the generations after their arrival. Their community exists across the country but with many concentrated pockets. I take it as a mark of pride that a vast number reside in my electorate of Spence and elsewhere in South Australia. I know that I am richer for the many engagements I have had with this community in the relatively short space of time I have been a representative in the Parliament of Australia.

The community has definitely come a long way since the first six Cambodian refugees arrived in my home state, way back in 1976. Those unfamiliar with Cambodian contemporary history might instead be familiar with the recent events within the country, namely the elections that were held on the 23rd of this month. Hun Sen's Cambodian People's Party have gone so far as to ban opposition parties from even participating in what they would call a 'democratic election' and to claim the legitimacy of election results that had them win 125 of 125 seats in their national assembly in 2018, and 120 of them at the recent election.

Without an opposition at home, some governments may begin to turn to eliminating any opposition to their regimes that may exist in other countries. This is not something that we as a nation should tolerate happening within our own backyard. Those in our Cambodian community within Australia—or any multicultural community in Australia, for that matter—should expect that they can participate within their communities in this country, and in the community at large, without fear of a foreign government monitoring and surveilling their movements; who they associate with; and their written, verbal and digital communications. Acts like this have a chilling effect. It's bad enough when they happen abroad, but we must not tolerate them happening within our borders.

Earlier this year I had the pleasure of attending a speech on foreign interference at ANU, delivered by the Minister for Home Affairs. It is something we should all have on our radars, but it gives me comfort knowing that it is something acutely on the radar of our government. Through the agencies that comprise our national intelligence community, with state and territory law enforcement agencies and bodies such as the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, we can combat corrosive foreign interference activities. But that isn't the whole of it. Fostering an environment where members of our multicultural diaspora can safely and comfortably communicate with agencies to report their suspicions of foreign interference activities goes a long way to these activities not occurring in the shadows. Our multicultural communities make Australia the amazing place that it is today, and any attempt from abroad to pervert that should not be without consequence.

I commend the member for McPherson for moving this motion and thank her for her outstanding leadership when she was home affairs minister. She was keenly aware of the issues outlined in this motion. We all, I think, vehemently agree that foreign interference poses a unique risk to this country. Increasingly, we're seeing when we read international media that it's perhaps not as unique as we would think. A number of Western liberal democracies are grappling with many of the issues that we're discussing today, and democracies are ripe for the kinds of conduct that have been outlined here, in respect of the Hun Sen regime in Cambodia. There are a number of them.

There is one thing that on this side of the parliament we're very proud of: the world-leading way in which we have addressed foreign interference. It's an issue where—a bit like tax evasion—you can never roll out the 'mission accomplished' sign. You can never say: 'Job done. We've got all the laws and all the enforcement in place to ensure that we aren't vulnerable to foreign interference.' The reality is it's an emerging risk. Threats emerge, and with them the government has to remain, firstly, steadfast in its determination to protect our sovereignty and, secondly, nimble enough to put in place the laws and the enforcement arrangements required to make sure that we can stamp out any attempts at foreign interference before they even get to being practical interference.

In touching on the recent revelations with respect to foreign interference allegedly emanating from Cambodia, I think that all of us from a migrant background, including me, are affronted. Indeed, all Australians are affronted, but those of us from a migrant background are particularly affronted, because those migrants who come to Australia come here to become Australian and to leave behind the animosities, the difficulties, the challenges and the rivalries—and the blood feuds, in many cases. That's the point and the reason they come here. That's the condition upon which we accept them as Australian citizens or permanent residents—that they leave those behind and that, in the end, as with all of us who attend citizenship ceremonies, their allegiance ultimately is to this country. So the allegations in particular that the Hun Sen regime has sought either to incentivise some individuals to do their bidding or—just as bad, and more dangerous for individuals—to punish people who are prominent in the Australian Cambodian community for not toeing the line, so to speak, I think should offend every single one of us.

My purpose in speaking today is obviously to support this very worthy motion to request—and I'm confident, but request—that the government is doing absolutely everything necessary to make sure that not just Cambodian Australians but Australians from all walks of life and all ethnicities and backgrounds do not have any nervousness or any threat hanging over them as to the way they express themselves politically in this country on matters that often relate to their country of birth or origin. We are an open liberal democracy, and people are entitled to form whatever views they want on global politics and to express them in a free way in this country. We cannot, under any circumstances, tolerate an environment where Australian Cambodians, in this instance, are fearful for their free political expression. I'm confident and hopeful that the government will do absolutely everything necessary to make sure that, as these threats emerge, we keep stamping these threats out and stay one step ahead.

This debate on Cambodian government foreign interference in Australia comes a week or so after, sadly, another sham election—another fake election—in Cambodia by the Hun Sen regime. Last time, they won 125 seats out of 125 seats. I thought: 'What could they aim for? A hundred and twenty-six?' Well, they've manipulated the results a little and they've now given themselves 120 seats, so there'll be five—probably fake—opposition members. But let's be very clear at the outset: that election has no credibility—none at all. The former opposition leader, Kem Sokha, is still jailed. He was convicted, just before the campaign, on trumped-up charges. The previous opposition party, from the election before, the CNRP, have been run out of town and are still banned; they're international exiles and fugitives—many of them, in my electorate and my community. And the Candlelight Party, the only hope for any kind of civil space or democracy to be created, was banned on a technicality just before the election. At least it's a consistent playbook, isn't it! Then, only a few days ago, good old Hun Sen and his gangster regime—I think the world's longest-serving head of government; the Robert Mugabe of South-East Asia—announced that daddy's boy, Hun Manet, is going to be the new Prime Minister. What a democracy!

But, as far as this motion goes, it's anodyne—you couldn't disagree with the words; it's apple pie on foreign interference. It is an insidious threat. I know the member for McPherson is incredibly, profoundly genuine and serious about that aspect of it, and that the Cambodian Hun Sen's CPP goon show's infiltration of Australia—its interfering in and messing with the democratic rights of our citizens; its interfering in temples and community groups; its setting up of fake organisations—is unacceptable. I've said before—I did admit it in the House—I'm very fond of the member for McPherson. But, really, for a Liberal MP, a former Liberal minister, to bring this motion—when I first read it, I thought: 'Is this a joke? Is it April Fool's Day?' What word could we use to describe it? It's gaslighting the chamber. It's trolling the Notice Paper.

That the Liberal Party now, finally in opposition, pretend to care at all about foreign interference from the Cambodian CPP is the height of hypocrisy, and it's frankly galling for those of us in my community who've been speaking up, fighting and asking for attention for years—literally years. It wasn't the Labor Party; it was the former Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison who was famously photographed drinking champagne with dictator Hun Sen. It was the Liberal government that signed that disgraceful refugee deal paying that government tens of millions of dollars to house about three refugees. They did nothing for a decade. I wrote them letter after letter. Marise Payne occasionally wrote back.

Hong Lim, who you rightly mentioned, is an old friend of mine, and he and Hemara In were charged by the Hun Sen regime in the last term, when those opposite were in government, with trumped-up criminal charges for speaking out in Australia against the regime. It's an old tactic from the authoritarian playbook. They must go to conferences and give each other PowerPoints! I think DFAT said the last time they saw it was when Rwanda tried it. But there was nothing. I couldn't even get a letter back. The government did nothing. For them now to come in and pretend to care is galling.

The community angst, the death threats—I hate to say it, but they're not new. We've had them for years. It is the same nonsense. 'If you speak up in Australia against Hun Sen, we'll come and kill you or get your family.' The community angst, the fake groups—we called for visa bans, and the same goons, month after month, kept coming around in party uniforms, running fake community events, intimidating our diaspora. What I would say—and I'll choose my words carefully—is that I'm very pleased to see that there's a lot less of that now. It wasn't Labor members of parliament; I think it was Gladys Liu, when she roped Julie Bishop in, who was photographed with CPP stooges at Liberal Party fundraisers. There were countless letters to ministers and endless requests for briefings that went unanswered.

I get that this is hard. I get that Australia's power is limited. I sit on the intelligence and security committee. There are limits to what you can do. I get that you can't achieve everything in government that you'd like. I do get the fact that the extraterritoriality and jurisdictional questions are complex, particularly to combat the offensive tactic of 'We'll get your family in the home country if you speak up here.' But the previous government didn't even try on Cambodia. I just want to make that point. That's why I sound upset: because I am. I've been fighting this battle for years.

So I agree with the words, but I really wish that in the decade you were in government you'd done something there.

It's most interesting to listen to the debate that we've had on the floor of the Federation Chamber today. It's been spoken with passion on a motion brought forward by the member for McPherson which is quite apt for the time to give opportunity for such addresses, be they passionate or be they more concerned with the local community.

I support the member for McPherson for a very good reason. I would go back a number of years to waves of migrants that came to this country and made a huge contribution. They were the Serbians and the Croatians. But what they brought with them was the blood rivalry, the revenge, the great sadness for the war-torn countries of Europe that they had left to come to this new place of freedom, opportunity, freedom of association and freedom of speech, not having any understanding of where we were at. I note that the member for Calwell, Maria Vamvakinou, brought to my attention a number of times that, when waves of new immigrants come into her community, which is one of the first places they stay in Melbourne, they would then have to explain to the immigrants that you don't have to kill the brother-in-law or the father down the street in this country. For that even to have to be said for us would be something that we wouldn't really consider. It could be the case that someone has such a passion about what's happened to their family in the past, and that family that caused the problem is now living down the street in Australia, and they have revenge in mind. It wouldn't come into our mind.

But what is insidious in this—and I thank the member for McPherson for bringing it to the attention of the parliament—is that they come to Australia for freedom and opportunity, sometimes not for themselves but definitely for their children. These groups that come just work hard, 24 hours a day if they have to. They'll do anything, any job, anywhere, any opportunity—they will take it up. But their children get the opportunity to go to our schools and our universities and, in that generation, make an enormous contribution to what happens in Australia. It's the parents that suffer the indignity in this country of an outrageous regime thinking that it can influence what happens in this nation, in their diaspora community, with threats such as, 'We will kill your children if you don't obey what we want you to say.' Ninety-five per cent of Australians around this country, from Perth to Parramatta, from Darwin to Tasmania, wouldn't even understand what these people have to put up with. The opportunity is given by our freedom of movement in this country—for people to come in here from a country such as that on a holiday visa, visiting visa or whatever visa they got themselves in on and say: 'Goodness, gracious me! I can do what I like here in Australia. I can go into that country and set up a quasi organisation, pretending I'm visiting for good reasons, to influence good relationships between Cambodia and Australia, and, instead, threaten their safety and blackmail people into our way of thinking so they must support our regime.'

I pray that the government is working towards the best outcome. I thank the member for McPherson again for bringing this to the notice of not only this parliament but the Australian people. I pray that the Cambodian community, or any other community in our district and our responsibility, is given the safety, protection and care that comes with what it means to be a Cambodian-Australian. They call themselves Cambodian-Australians. Their children will call themselves Australians of Cambodian descent.

I thank the member for McPherson for her motion. Espionage and foreign interference represent serious threats to our sovereignty and security and the integrity of our national institutions. In fact, they threaten Australia's way of life. That is why Australia has criminal offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 and a robust framework in place to protect our democracy from acts of foreign interference and other activities to strengthen our resilience. It would be naive to think that nation-states and other actors don't unfortunately participate in such activities. Sitting around, hoping and praying, is not enough. Hoping for better times won't make us safe in this difficult modern world.

The threat of foreign interference is pervasive and multifaceted and, if left unchecked, could do serious damage to our security, sovereignty and values. Moreover, it could actually threaten the safety of the Australian community. The Director-General of Security said in his 2023 threat assessment:

Multiple nations are using espionage and foreign interference to advance their interests and undermine Australia's.

…   …   …

They are using foreign interference … To monitor, threaten—

as we've heard from speakers from both sides of the chamber—

and even harm members of diaspora communities.

I have seen this in my own community. They are using foreign interference 'to manipulate messages among communities, through foreign language media, and by establishing community organisations', which are often fake. This means 'more ASIO investigations, more ASIO disruptions' and that 'ASIO is busier than ever before'. The Department of Home Affairs regularly engages with our culturally and linguistically diverse communities' and state and territory governments' pleas for national security agencies to build community awareness of and resilience to the threat of foreign interference.

Between 1 July last year and 30 June this year, the department's community liaison officer network undertook more than 90 engagements with Cambodian Australian communities. Between February and July this year, the department had seven engagements specifically with the Cambodian community relating to countering foreign interference. This does not include other cross-community meetings that would have also included Cambodian community members. Three of these were community liaison led, and four were Counter Foreign Interference Coordination Centre engagements. The community liaison officer engagements were all in South Australia, and the Counter Foreign Interference Coordination Centre engagements were held in Victoria and in Sydney. The engagement in Sydney and two of the engagements in Victoria were in collaboration with the AFP. The third engagement in Victoria was in collaboration with DFAT.

My colleague the member for Bruce, Julian Hill, spoke very passionately about this topic just before, and rightly so. From what he said, he's got concerns about the conduct of the Cambodian government, especially its prime minister, Hun Sen, in Australia and these terrible practices that are about silencing dissenters, even those living in Australia, through various means, including threatening the safety of family members that are still back in Cambodia. I fear that these practices won't be stopping any time soon. The Albanese government needs to ensure that we're supporting these communities and calling out these bad faith actors on every occasion.

In the recent elections, the Cambodian People's Party won 120 out of the 125 seats, and many of the opposition politicians were silenced or jailed or both. Therefore, these dubious anti-democratic activities are likely to persist for a while to come. Even though Prime Minister Hun Sen has announced he's stepping down, I don't hold any hope of change, as his son Hun Manet will be taking his place. Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies need to continue to assess, investigate, disrupt and, where possible, prosecute acts of foreign interference on our shores. We need to keep a serious eye on the conduct of the Cambodian regime.

The Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, which includes the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Federal Police, is a task force dedicated specifically to discovering, disrupting and investigating foreign interference activity, something that both sides of the chamber support. I know it's not often possible to comment on operational matters; however, the government will publicly attribute acts of foreign interference when it is in our national interest to do so. Sunlight is a great disinfectant when it comes to this behaviour. I look forward to much of it being called out in the future.

I've never met a colleague who doesn't share my view that one of the most enjoyable parts of our role as members of parliament is to attend citizenship ceremonies. Obviously it's a very proud day for those taking the pledge, but, for us as local community leaders, it also fills us with a great pride in our country that so many people make the decision to choose their future in Australia. In my view, we are the greatest multicultural success story on the planet. Long may that continue into the future.

One of the experiences you have at those ceremonies, when you're speaking to the successfully pledged citizens, is to talk with them about their background: how they've come to be a part of our community and why they made the decision to come to Australia. Regrettably, some of those stories are not very pleasant. They're certainly happy and grateful and excited about their future in our country, but, in some cases, they had to flee the country that they left. So it's an additional source of pride that we provide, in this country, a safe haven for people in that circumstance and have for many, many, many decades.

This motion really goes towards us defending that vital principle around accepting people who have fled their nation and providing them a future and protecting them here in this country. That is why I'm sure we welcome with unanimity an opportunity to condemn the fact that there are reports that people living in Australia within the Cambodian community are being intimidated and threatened by members of the regime that they have fled. We equally understand, and this point has been made, that one of the worst elements of that intimidation is that people who come to this country after leaving in those circumstances probably almost never bring the entirety of their families and their loved ones with them. They have this terrible, awful exposure that people they care about have been left behind and are still under the influence of a regime that may mete out some kind of retribution against the family members of people who have come to this country and are making their future in this country and who are exercising their free, democratic rights in this country. I certainly commend the member for bringing this issue to the chamber and thank the unanimity of members in pointing out the solidarity that we have in backing the government to do everything they possibly can to investigate and prevent this kind of behaviour from occurring.

The motion also touches on criminal activity, including money laundering. Again we wish the government and the agencies at the front line of this all success in undertaking investigations and finding people who are engaging in this conduct. We know money laundering is a problem. We know human trafficking in the sex trade and underage human trafficking are enormous challenges in some of these regime countries and for their diaspora here as well. We need to protect them. I wish the government well in that.

I serve on the electoral matters committee. We of course have been looking very seriously at some of the future risks around foreign interference in our democracy in the cyberage. We know now that with AI and other technology all kinds of nefarious tactics can be used to disrupt and influence our democratic elections and that foreign actors, particularly those that are state sponsored, are probably in a much stronger position than ever before to undertake interference in our elections, from the comfort of their host nation perhaps, and use emerging technologies to potentially disrupt and in fact change the outcomes of our elections. We have to be very vigilant about that.

The broad topic of foreign interference needs to have bipartisanship. I commend the member for McPherson for bringing this motion to us so that we can talk about and ventilate these issues. I conclude by saying how proud we are to have such a multicultural society. The loss to a regime of their youngest, brightest and most capable people is the gain of our society here in Australia. We welcome those people. We want to make sure that we're using every resource of government to protect them here so that they can have the best future that they dream of here as Australians.

I rise to speak on a matter of upmost importance that threatens the very core of our democracy and the safety of our citizens. We must recognise the insidious nature of foreign interference and acknowledge the severe threat it poses to our democracy. As a nation Australia has always been a defender of freedom, diversity and democratic values. Our commitment to these principles has made us a target for those who seek to undermine our sovereignty and manipulate our way of life. It is critical that we remain vigilant and united against any attempts to infiltrate or disrupt our democratic process.

Recent reports have shed light on the disturbing activities of Cambodia's Hun Sen regime attempting to infiltrate and monitor the activities within our Australian community. They have particularly targeted diaspora communities. This sinister interference must not be taken lightly. Our diaspora communities are a central part of the nation's fabric, contributing to our society's enrichment and prosperity. They should feel safe and secure, free from fear of surveillance or coercion from foreign entities.

Furthermore, we cannot ignore the alarming reports of potential money laundering in Australia by key figures of the Hun Sen regime. Money laundering poses significant risks to our financial systems, integrity and national security. It is our responsibility to ensure that our financial institutions are not unwittingly used as tools for illicit activities that may fund corrupt regimes overseas. We are rightly concerned about foreign principals who are threatening our democratic institutions that form the foundations of our free and open democracy. They are threatening or coercing members of the community, friends and neighbours in our community and are sowing divisions into our community through disinformation and manipulation of our media. There are concerns about the stealing of research, improperly influencing teaching and debate in our world-leading universities and research organisations, undermining the operations of Australian businesses and improperly using investment in Australia to undermine our sovereignty and prosperity.

Foreign principals continue to try to compromise the critical infrastructure that underpins our way of life and our economy. These concerning reports call for immediate action and thorough investigations. It is unacceptable for any foreign government to target members of our community in a way that prevents individuals exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms in Australia. Our government is taking the lead in addressing these issues head on. Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies work diligently to uncover the truth, identify any wrongdoings and hold those responsible accountable for their actions. The Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, which includes the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the AFP, is a task force dedicated specifically to discovering, disrupting and investigating foreign interference activities.

We should never compromise the integrity of our democracy and the safety of our citizens. To preserve the values that define us as a nation we must remain steadfast in safeguarding against foreign interference. This includes bolstering our security measures, fostering a culture of awareness among our communities and engaging in robust diplomatic discussions to address these matters with foreign governments. The Albanese Labor government has put in place a number of policies and programs to strengthen Australia's social fabric and build community resilience, including from foreign interference. The government and intelligence agencies, along with law enforcement, work closely together to engage with and support communities concerned or affected by foreign interference. The Department of Home Affairs regularly engages with our culturally and linguistically diverse communities—as do territory governments, police and national security agencies—to build community awareness of and resilience to the threat of foreign interference. In February the AFP launched new resources to help counter interference with culturally and linguistically diverse communities. As part of these resources a public fact sheet was published and translated into more than 30 languages.

The time allotted for this debate has expired.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released in June 2023 show that since, May 2022:

(a) women's total employment is up by 249,000;

(b) 233,500 more women have joined the labour force;

(c) women's part-time work has increased by 20,500

(d) women's full-time jobs have boomed, increasing by 228,600; and

(e) women have accounted for 59.3 per cent of the growth in full-time jobs;

(2) further notes that this comes off the back of recent Treasury analysis showing that the first 12 months of the Government have had the strongest jobs growth of any new Australian government in history; and

(3) recognises the Government is laying strong foundations for a better future for women in the workforce by delivering on its key election commitments of:

(a) cheaper child care;

(b) expanding paid parental leave;

(c) action to boost wages of the low paid through submissions to the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review and aged care work value case;

(d) delivering the recommendations of the Respect@Work report; and

(e) delivering our Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation which:

(i) has opened up bargaining to workers in low-paid industries which are most likely to be female dominated through the supported bargaining stream;

(ii) made gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act;

(iii) set up new expert panels in the Fair Work Commission focused on pay equity and the care and community sector, and introduced a statutory equal remuneration principle to address low wages and gender-based undervaluation of work;

(iv) made the right to request flexible working arrangements an enforceable right; and

(v) prohibited pay secrecy clauses.

I am very happy to rise to speak on this private member's motion in my name today—happy because we have good news to share on women's employment in this country. The Australian Bureau of Statistics released figures in June 2023 that showed that, since the Albanese Labor government came into power, women's total employment is up by 249,000, we have 233½ thousand more women who have joined the labour force and women's part-time work has increased by 20½ thousand. Women's full-time jobs have boomed, increasing by 228,600, and women have accounted for 59.3 per cent of the growth in full-time jobs. This is great news for Australian women.

Furthermore, the latest Global gender gap report from the World Economic Forum shows that, since the Albanese Labor government took office, Australia's world gender equality ranking has jumped up 17 places, from 43 to 26, the largest increase since that index began in 2006. At the election Labor promised to make Australia a world leader on gender equality, after a decade of stalled progress under the former coalition government, and these results show just how serious the Albanese government is about delivering on this promise and improving the lives of women right across this vast continent. The historic 17-place jump is a direct result of a conscious effort by Labor and of our commitment to equal representation in politics. It's as a result of this commitment that the government is now the first Australian Commonwealth government in history to be made up of a majority of women. Fifty-three per cent of this government are women, and 43 per cent of cabinet members are women—again, the largest number of women ever in an Australian federal cabinet.

We know that better gender representation delivers better outcomes. Women being 53 per cent of the Albanese Labor government ensures that gender equality is not some kind of add-on or afterthought for us. It sits very much front and centre of our policy thinking. We are embedding a gender lens in government on everything we do, from the NDIS and our social security system across to industrial relations and laws, and the budget more generally. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering crucial gender equality reforms. Some, including me, would say they're long overdue, but let's get cracking.

Since coming to government, we've delivered cheaper child care, expanded and modernised the Paid Parental Leave scheme, expanded the single parenting payment and legislated Australia's first paid domestic violence leave. We're delivering on the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. We've made gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act. We've made the right to request flexible working arrangements an enforceable right, and increased transparency on gender pay gap reporting. Our secure jobs, better pay legislation has opened up bargaining to workers in low-paid industries, most of whom are generally women. We have set up new, expert panels for the Fair Work Commission, focused on pay equity in the care and community sector; and we've introduced a statutory equal new remuneration principle to address low wages and gender-based undervaluation of work. These reforms are laying some strong foundations now for a better future for women in the workforce. But we need to keep going. There's a lot more to do.

Australia's national gender pay gap is currently 13.3 per cent, and this means that, on average, a woman working full time earns $253.50 less per week than a man working full time. That is not okay by anybody's measure. We have had a persistent pay gap for some time. Australian women should not expect to be paid less than men in any job they do. It's that simple. After a decade of government inaction, of defunding services, of general disregard of and disrespect for women's calls for change, we in government are not wasting a single day.

I am so proud that we have managed to jump those 17 points on the global gender equality record. That's what happens when you insist on measuring and holding government to account. That's what we were doing each and every day.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Well may you say that you have good news for all women in Australia and well may you say that 53 per cent representation in this government means a better outcome for women across this nation. That will be a scorecard for later on. But I do want those in government to take note of this. When they praise themselves for increasing the single parenting payment, they may be forgetting that the mover of this motion was in the parliament when the single parenting payment was reduced and that people like me railed against the single parenting payment being reduced, as it threw thousands of children into poverty. They said, 'It was a great success, removing that money from those women.' When I asked why, they said, 'Because then thousands of them moved into work straightaway.' So, under the Labor administration, they had to walk away from their children, who they were caring for up to that age, or put them into abject poverty. They had to find a job anywhere, any job—not a job they wanted; any job.

I would put to you that, yes, it's clear by the figures that we have more women in full-time work. But I would question whether that should be the evidence of success for women, families and, indeed, society as a whole. I would question instead, with the evidence of families struggling to make ends meet and the escalating cost of living occurring under the leadership of this government, whether it's forcing conversations in the household to say: 'Darling, we cannot survive with one of us working. We'll lose the house. We'll take the kids out of the private Catholic school and put them in the public school, which is going to save us $2,000 a year per child. We're going to have to make some decisions. What do we do?' And, if the interest rates go up any higher, what are they going to do then? They're not prepared for this. They're not prepared for these interest rate rises. They're not prepared for the power price rises. They're not prepared for the utility costs rising. I spoke to a woman the other day, and she said: 'I've stopped buying firewood. I'm sitting there with a small electric heater and a rug on.' She was taking extra shifts in the bar that she worked in in Gippsland—as much work as she could get—but she said, 'I cannot afford the firewood any more.' So she's not lighting the fire.

I would question the costs for mothers who have been forced back into the workforce long before they would have chosen to go back. They might want to go back into the workforce. In this inquiry we're doing on Workforce Australia at the moment, we're finding women that are out of work and do want to go back to work, but they have barriers. Some of those barriers are insurmountable and unseen. I would question the cost for families who have been forced to outsource the critically important role of caregiver for their children to ensure that they have enough money to put food on the table. We can reduce the cost of child care, as a government—you'd hope—but have you increased the opportunity for our society to be a lesser place? Indeed, I would question the cost for our society if we devalue and neglect the critical contribution that women make outside of full-time work, often in unpaid roles providing stability to thriving communities. These communities rely upon mums that are at home.

There's so much to say. I think the wellbeing report by the government, under the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers—I know what it's like to struggle in life, managing children. I see my children doing it every day, and they're working full time. There's got to be a lot accountability for people, Australia and the way that we work for women.

I'm very pleased to support this motion by the member for Newcastle. I think there's a reason, when you look around at my colleagues on the government benches, that you see so many women sitting there—it's 53 per cent, in fact, across our caucus—and it's that Labor does care about gender equality. We care about women's economic stability, and closing the wage gap will always be a focus for us. Of course, the more that women are represented on our side of politics, on the crossbenches and, hopefully, in the opposition, the deeper the commitment and the understanding of the complexities that affect women's employment and earnings should be.

While no-one thinks we can flick a switch and end the gender pay gap overnight, we can already see the actions of the Albanese Labor government having a real effect. The latest Global gender gap report from the World Economic Forum shows that Australia's world gender equality ranking jumped 17 places from 43 to 26, and that's in our first year of government. It's the biggest improvement since the index was created in 2006, and it means our nation is back on track, working towards ending the gender pay gap, which still sits at around 13 per cent.

Now, in practical terms, on average, an Australian woman working full time earns $253.50 per week less than a man working full time. This pay gap persists across all industries. The level of employment of women in full-time jobs has improved in the last year. The latest Bureau of Statistics employment figures show good progress for women, with 54 per cent of the new full-time jobs in the year to July being for women, leading to 228,600 more women working full time. Now, that's some of the strongest jobs growth that we've seen, and across the board, in fact, unemployment is at a historic low. In New South Wales it's got a '2' in front of it—2.9 per cent—for the first time in recorded history.

If that is creating more opportunities for women to have secure, full-time work, that is a good consequence, but we know that there are many doing casual and gig economy work where loopholes mean they're being undercut on their wages. So, while we're pleased with the progress we've made over the past year or so, we know it's not good enough. There is no excuse to justify women being paid less than men. Closing the gender pay gap and increasing women's participation in the workforce has been at the heart of our election promises and our actions in government. We've expanded paid parental leave by committing $346 million over five years to combine paid parental leave and dad-and-partner pay into one scheme. This will better support dads and second parents to share the parental leave payments. Recently, a mum who earns more than her husband expressed her thanks for the changes that we've made. She said that it means that, where a family income limit of $350,000 is applied, she can now have paid parental leave rather than it being based on her income alone. It's worth noting that we've also expanded employees entitlement to unpaid parental leave from six weeks to 20 weeks so that families can share work and caring responsibilities more easily. These are making a real difference on the ground for people.

Our cheaper childcare policy is another way we're trying to tackle that pay gap. Earlier this month, our cheaper child care came into effect, designed to make it cheaper for around 6,000 families in Macquarie and to increase women's participation in the workforce. It's not fixing the problem in one go, but it is the start of our commitment to improving childcare access and cost. We have the Productivity Commission on the case to look at how we can improve affordability and access for the long term. We want to see how we can make sure that we've got a universal early education system so every child gets a great start in life.

Lack of flexible working arrangements was flagged as a key barrier to women's workforce participation at our Jobs and Skills Summit last September. Women still do a larger proportion of unpaid caring work and are twice as likely to request flexible working arrangements. Unsupportive workplaces can lead to them taking lower-paid, less-senior positions and less-secure work. Our 'secure jobs, better pay' legislation has delivered stronger access to flexible working arrangements. Employers and employees must now come together. This, along with things like lifting the barriers for bargaining, means that we're making a difference in that gender pay gap.

I rise to speak on this motion relating to women's employment and economic security. Women's participation in the workforce—their ability and opportunities to have choices and flexibility around how to best balance their family's needs with their own career aspirations—is one of the most important issues facing our country. Women's equality is essential for strengthening our economy, our society and our nation. The government must commit to ensuring that women's workforce participation continues to rise. This is essential to supporting economic growth and raising living standards for all Australians.

When Australian women do well, their families do well and our nation does well. However, we now have a growing cohort of Australian women who risk living in poverty at retirement. This can be linked directly to the massive differential in superannuation between Australian men and women. On average, Australian women retire on 47 per cent less superannuation than Australian men. This in turn can be related to the time women take out of the workforce for childbirth and child rearing.

We have now had a government paid parental leave scheme since 2011. It is extremely disappointing that this scheme, after 12 years, still does not attract the superannuation guarantee. The consequence of this is that it is not compulsory for any employer to pay superannuation while a new parent, usually the mother, is on paid parental leave. The Labor government's own Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, as well as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and the Productivity Commission, have long advocated for compulsory payment of superannuation for parents on parental leave. It is, therefore, highly disappointing that, despite handing down two budgets over the last 12 months, Treasurer Chalmers has ignored all of this advice and has to date failed to make changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme to assist Australian women.

The importance of the superannuation guarantee being applied to the Paid Parental Leave scheme is highlighted further as women commonly rejoin the workforce on a part-time basis after their parental leave has concluded and as a result their superannuation earnings will be lower because they earn less. According to data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, even the annualised base salary for part-time employment of $54,000 is less when compared to the about $84,000 full-time average base salary. Consequently, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency concluded in its report:

… the current superannuation system in Australia, which is tied to paid work, creates significant inequalities in retirement incomes for those who provide unpaid care.

Most of these roles are filled by women. Women should not be financially punished in this manner for making choices about having and raising children. The government has the fiscal levers available to it to remedy this situation.

A further barrier for women is that part-time employment is also less likely to be available in senior management roles. In fact, availability is currently estimated at only around 10 per cent. This low percentage of part-time employment in management also limits women's capacity to take up or stay in senior leadership roles if they are a carer. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has also provided data showing that the gender pay gap is more significant in part-time than in full-time positions, contributing further to lower superannuation in general. Therefore, while the ABS statistics referred to in this motion are pleasing—women's workforce participation has been improving—there is still a major gap, particularly with superannuation and the lack of superannuation paid on paid parental leave, and that is contributing significantly to women facing retirement on far less money than Australian men.

I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to make sure that gender equality remains at the heart of everything we do here. I'm pleased to say that the recent gender gap report from the World Economic Forum shows Australia's world gender equality ranking has risen from 43 to 26—a jump of 17 places. It is the largest increase since the index began in 2006. That is the difference a change of government can make. We have placed gender equality at the heart of what we do. It's not something that is just nice to have or something you can isolate to one department off to the side; it spans our entire government and we have set ourselves an ambitious goal—to make Australia one of the most gender-equal countries in the world. We've matched that goal with some key policies to help us get there, and we are starting to see the impact of that. The gender pay gap is closing and trending in the right direction. In the last six months, it's dropped from 14.1 per cent to 13.3 per cent, the smallest it's ever been.

Let me outline some of the critical policy changes we've made. We have put gender equity as an object of our industrial relations framework. It ensures the Fair Work Commission factors in gender equity when considering the minimum wage and changing awards. We have also made changes to reduce barriers to bargaining, including multi-enterprise bargaining, a change that will have a significant impact for women, who are more likely to work in industries like aged care and early childhood education—sectors that tend to pay lower and where workers often lack the resources to bargain effectively. We've ended pay secrecy, a practice that hides the true extent of gender pay discrimination in a workplace because it makes it harder for women to ask for pay increases. We have expanded paid parental leave and made it easier for both parents to access the leave. A hallmark announcement during the federal election was our commitment to make child care more affordable. It's good for parents, usually mums who are getting back into work, because it reduces the motherhood penalty many women face when having children. We've made significant inroads on gender inequality while we've had the country's first majority-female federal government. I don't think that is a coincidence. This is the most diverse government our country has ever had, which means it better reflects the community. It also means our policies are better at supporting our community.

The goal to make Australia one of the most gender equal countries in the world may seem like a lofty goal, but it's an important one not just for Australia but for our region. I recently visited Solomon Islands to see the development work being supported by NGOs and the Australian government. The gender inequality in the Solomon Islands is stark. Women earn little more than half of what men do. Two out of three women have reported experiencing physical violence from an intimate partner. These are deeply disturbing figures. I saw firsthand the conditions in which women were having to give birth, at birthing units which did not have electricity or lighting and were so basic that when I heard the maternal mortality rate was 114 out of every 100,000 live births, ranking Solomon Islands as 113th in the world, I was not surprised.

It's an important reminder of why Australia needs to be a beacon of gender equity in our region. An NGO specialising in women's reproductive health, MSI Reproductive Choices, reported that the overturning of Roe v Wade in the United States gave permission to authoritarian governments around the world to further restrict reproductive rights for women in their countries. Their argument is, 'If they can do it in the United States then we can do it here too.' We have seen a dangerous and dramatic backsliding of women's gender equality, and it's a reminder to us all that the rights that our mothers and grandmothers fought so hard for can be easily taken away if we do not actively and persistently fight for them. It has never been more important for Australia to stand as a beacon of hope for gender equality in our region.

I will always support and advocate for the advancement of women in Australia. However, I think this motion needs to also reflect on and recognise the role of the previous coalition government in leading the pathway for the ongoing progression of female workforce participation and implementation of the Workplace Gender Equality Act review, amongst other very important initiatives. The House knows that the coalition government, from 2013 to 2022, had a strong record on jobs growth, with 1.9 million jobs created, 60 per cent of which were taken up by women. Female workforce participation rose by 3.5 per cent to a then record of 62.2 per cent, and this was despite a similar drop in the figures over the period of the previous Rudd and Gillard Labor governments.

I am really passionate about women's workforce participation, particularly amongst women who are from lower-socioeconomic situations, often due to no fault of their own. In a previous career, before politics, I worked in community housing, and I started a program called WISH, which was Women In Social Housing, to support these women—where there was often intergenerational welfare—into work through mentorship and support. We saw that employment literally changed lives.

The previous, coalition government delivered a review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act in 2021 and moved towards recommendation implementation with $18 million. The two most recent coalition budgets saw over $5 billion for women's initiatives across leadership, safety, workforce participation and health outcomes. During the last government we also saw 300,000 more children go into child care, which of course assisted working parents, and we saw a near doubling of support for families accessing child care, to $11 billion from $6.2 billion at the end of the second Rudd government.

The coalition's women's policy is now being led by our deputy leader, the honourable member for Farrer, as the shadow minister for women, and she has taken charge in ensuring that women's issues are at the forefront of policymaking. Recently it was my pleasure to lead, for the coalition, the consideration in detail of the recent appropriation bills debate on the women's portfolio under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In that contribution, I noted the disappointment of business and of women who want to re-enter the workforce when this Labor government did not renew the Career Revive program in the previous budget. The program was in place from 2019 and ran out of funding at the end of the previous financial year. This is a shame, as it did support businesses in attracting and retaining women returning to work after a career break.

In the most recent budget, the Labor government have attempted to badge increased bulk-billing incentives and the Workplace Incentive Program as women's health measures. Women need more from this government. That's why the Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply speech, announced $4 million for Ovarian Cancer Australia to continue its vital work. Further, the coalition announced that we would, if elected, allocate $5 million to review women-specific healthcare items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Our hope is that the review would identify what best practice women-specific medical services are not on the schedule, and ensure that clinically effective services and treatments remain affordable and accessible.

Something I am extremely passionate about as I go around the country speaking to people about mental health, particularly young women, is the Medicare subsidised psychology sessions, which were cut by this government from 20 to 10. This particularly impacts young woman. This is another policy aspect the coalition has taken a lead on. If we are returned to government—when we are returned to government—we will restore the 20 sessions for all Australians on a permanent basis.

One very unfortunate target the Labor government is not meeting is its commitment to create 500 additional frontline community roles for reducing domestic violence and providing safety for women. Despite progressing funding for this election commitment in the October budget with a pledge to ensure 200 workers on the ground in the previous financial year, we don't know how many are on the ground now. I did ask a question about that in a previous speech, and it would be fantastic to get an update. There are really high rates of domestic violence in my community of Western Sydney, and this is an issue that I see as being very important—keeping women safe across Australia.

I wish to thank the member for Newcastle for presenting this motion. It holds great personal significance to me as the mother of two young women and as a member of Australia's first female-majority Labor caucus. The issue of women's employment resonates deeply with me, as it reflects both the progress we have made and the challenges that still lie ahead.

When I first entered the workforce, the gender pay gap was a concerning 23 per cent, and maternity leave was a privilege reserved mainly for those in the Public Service and was unpaid and inconsistently offered across different industries. Domestic violence leave from the workplace was not even considered. However, under the leadership of the Albanese Labor government, we are achieving significant milestones.

We've successfully introduced 20 weeks of paid parental leave for all new mothers, and we've embedded enabling legislation that gives new fathers the ability to better share parenting responsibilities. We have created history by introducing 10-day workplace leave due to domestic and family violence—the first time ever. This will mean women can more readily escape family violence, get children to safety, and keep their job and their wage. The gender pay gap has decreased to 13.3 per cent, a testament to our commitment to narrowing this gap. Recent reports from the World Economic Forum indicate that our nation's world gender equality ranking has improved significantly, moving up 17 places from 43rd to 26th.

Whilst we take pride in these accomplishments, we are also aware that much remains to be done. The current national gender pay gap means that, on average, women working full time earn $253 less each week than their male counterparts. We know this disparity is not good enough, so we are acting to enhance women's economic security. Through the secure jobs, better pay legislation we've empowered the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for workers in low-paid feminised industries, like aged care and child care. Additionally, we have included gender equality as an objective in the Fair Work Act 2009, prohibiting pay secrecy and establishing a statutory equal-remuneration principle.

Our commitment to women's economic empowerment is evident through various initiatives, including providing better access to flexible working arrangements, enabling families to share work and caregiving responsibilities; allocating $4 billion to government and community organisations for women's safety initiatives; investing $8.6 million in the Australian Skills Guarantee, to set national targets for women in apprenticeships, traineeships and cadetships; funding $91.3 million to strengthen the mental health care workforce, with 80 per cent of additional psychology placements dedicated to women; committing $72.4 million to support the early childhood education and care workforce, of which 92 per cent are women; and delivering fee-free TAFE, which is already having a positive impact, with women representing 60 per cent of all enrolments.

This is important work. These reforms mean more women can work if they want to, to earn more and grow their super. Superannuation is particularly important for women. We know that women over 55 are the most vulnerable group to homelessness, and this is unacceptable. The reforms have been driven by our Labor caucus, which, for the first time ever, proudly has a majority of women. Our Labor government is absolutely committed to advancing equity and opportunity for women. Let us remember that until 1972, around a decade before I entered the workforce, no major party had a women's policy. It was only under Labor, led by former prime minister Gough Whitlam and his women's adviser, Elizabeth Reid, that a revolution for women's rights began.

In closing, I urge all members to come together in supporting women's employment. Let us continue this journey with determination, creating a future where women's economic empowerment is not just an aspiration but a reality for all. We all know that when women do better, we as a nation do better.

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.

Sitting suspended from 13:28 to 16:00

More than 200 people have contacted my office in the last year to talk to me about the challenges they face in their dealings with the NDIS. This month I held an NDIS solutions forum, where constituents came to brainstorm solutions in response to the NDIS review. At the forum we discussed solutions to many issues, but two stood out.

The biggest frustration for people dealing with the NDIS is the planning process. My constituents suggested local face-to-face planning and increased case management to reduce the stress of meetings, improve transparency in decision-making and ensure final plans meet participant needs. Attendees also suggested that new clients start with a standardised plan for some conditions. This would allow people to find a starting point for their planning and to focus on planning for individual differences rather than fighting for basics.

The second-biggest issue for constituents is the interaction between the NDIS and other mainstream systems. The NDIS cannot support all people with disability all the time. People with disability need to be able to access other supports through education, health, local government, public transport and community groups.

I look forward to providing Curtin's ideas for improvement to the minister's office and urge the government to work towards effective and comprehensive reform of the NDIS.

We all know Australians are world leaders in the uptake of rooftop solar, but many apartment dwellers have been locked out of these benefits until now. I'm pleased to say that more Canberrans will soon have the chance to enjoy cheaper and cleaner energy from solar power thanks to an exciting collaboration between the Albanese Labor government and the ACT Barr Labor government to install shared rooftop solar on multi-unit apartments. The $3.6 million investment will provide incentives to install rooftop solar on apartment blocks, through rebates and concessional loans to body corporates. Under this scheme, multidwelling body corporates will have access to up to $100,000 for rooftop solar installations.

We know that renewable energy is the most cost-effective form of energy. Investing in ACT renters and apartment owners, who currently lack access to solar power, will enable everyone to reap the rewards of the clean energy transformation. It is estimated that over 2,100 households will benefit from this program, potentially leading to a 35 per cent reduction in electricity bills for Canberrans living in apartments. Applications will open later this year.

This is just one part of Labor's plan to transition to net zero. I am very proud that we're taking this step in Canberra. It's good for our climate and it's good for Canberrans.

Last week I attended a MTC graduation ceremony where I saw 21 students who had completed the Skills for Education and Employment program—SEE for short. SEE is a program that caters for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and has the goal of helping them find a job and engage more effectively in their work and study. MTC SEE is a training and upskilling program designed to help individuals build their skills and the self-confidence they need in order to find a job they want.

In Fowler we know that 70 per cent of my community speak a language other than English and, therefore, the SEE program provided by MTC is very important for the community. I said to them that this program is important for getting a job, building confidence, helping with mental health and also providing for their families. That is why I'm grateful for community training centres like MTC, because they create pathways for advancement through the education, employment, numeracy and literacy support programs for people from disadvantaged and non-English-speaking backgrounds.

I congratulate all the graduates of the MTC SEE Cabramatta program. I believe that, if we support and educate people, we empower them to create a better future for themselves, their families and our community.

There's no doubt that this winter people in my electorate and around the country have felt pressure from the cost-of-living increases. Our government understands that households are feeling the price increases and that's why it's providing targeted support to help those who need it most, while not indulging in a cash splash that would add to inflation pressures. I particularly want to draw attention today to the energy relief payments that our government is providing. These are incremental payments totalling $250 off electricity bills. In Victoria they are in addition to the $250 being offered by the state government. These are targeted at people who need assistance the most, including pensioners, carers, Commonwealth concession card holders, low-income earners and veterans. The payments are applied directly, so there is no need for eligible people to do anything to receive them. They will appear on your bill.

Of course, this isn't the only area our government is providing cost-of-living relief in. From cheaper medicines to cheaper childcare and fee-free TAFE, our government is supporting community members across a range of areas. We know Australians elected us to support them now and to do the hard work to support them into the future. We have not forgotten that this is a time when people are feeling the pressure from cost of living. We have not forgotten that it is our job to support people who need it most, and that is exactly what we are doing.

If you're a renter, you have a real chance to have your voice heard on the national stage for the first time. One-third of this country rents—around eight million people—and far too often renters are treated as second-class citizens, completely ignored by our political class, which is all too often interested in the profits of banks and property developers above renters. Well, after the Greens secured the country's first ever national inquiry into the rental crisis, you have a chance to share your experience and force the government to finally listen—force them to listen to stories like Jessica's. She is a single mum in South Brisbane who has copped a $100-a-week rent increase. This increase has meant she's had to take her kids out of swimming lessons and make tough choices at the supermarket. If she copped one more rent increase, she'll likely have to move her family out of her community and pull her kids out of their school and away from their friends.

There are stories like Jay's. He's the father in a family of five who has just copped an eviction notice for no reason after they made multiple improvements to the home at their own cost, including fly screens and a clothesline. Now it looks like the property will be advertised for $100 a week more. It's stories like these that are too often ignored, but, if you're are a renter and you have a story like this, now is your chance. You have until 4 August to make a super-easy submission. It takes just a few minutes.

We know that the federal government has the power to coordinate a national freeze and cap on rent increases and give renters real rights. We know national cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, is considering a national agreement on renters' rights right now, but, if we want them to act, we need them to listen to stories like yours.

I have always said the Hunter has the best wines in Australia, and I have once again been proven to be right. Tyrrell's vineyard has taken out the semillon trophy for its 2019 Pokolbin Hills semillon while at the 2023 National Wine Show of Australia. The National Wine Show is a celebration of the resilience of an industry that has been challenged by COVID, bushfires, drought, flood and trade sanctions but which continues to produce some of the world's best and most exciting wines. The National Wine Show is widely regarded as the most important wine show in the country, and only the wines that have already won gold or silver in regional or capital city wine shows are eligible to enter. It is a competition between the best of the best, and the Hunter wine came out on top in the semillon category. Winners usually enjoy increased domestic and international sales and heightened brand awareness. Now the world will know the Hunter has the best wines. There was a lot of tough competition for Tyrrell's, with 965 wines being entered into the National Wine Show this year, but nothing beats the wine which is made in the Hunter. Congratulations to Bruce and his team on their win. I'm looking forward to having a glass or two with you in the near future.

I rise on a very serious issue: the state of the roads in the wonderful electorate of Wannon and right across this nation. This is to raise the matter of Labor's infrastructure review. What are they up to, cutting road funding when roads have been damaged through what, especially in Victoria, has been an incredibly wet winter and from underfunding from the Andrews government year after year. We now are looking at the Green Triangle package of road funding: $50 million is now under threat. There is also the matter of $200 million worth of funding for the Princes Highway, a road like no other in this country, which desperately needs funding to improve it. We're looking at $360 million for the Western Highway—the major route between Melbourne and Adelaide. That's $50 million for the Green Triangle, $200 million for the Princes Highway and $360 million for the Western Highway—all under threat now, because of this Labor government infrastructure review.

We need our roads invested in. We need more money, not less. The state of our roads needs urgent attention, and I cannot believe that the Labor government would be doing this to the electors in Wannon. It is an absolute disgrace.

No matter what community event I attend in the Hawkesbury, I know that the volunteers of the St John Ambulance Hawkesbury City Division will be there. They've been there for 75 years, and they mark their anniversary this August. Whether it's a veterans memorial day, carols in the park, showjumping or the Hawkesbury Show, the St John volunteers will be quietly there, ready if their training is needed. Their skills range from those of first aiders, first responders and advanced responders to those of healthcare professionals, and those skills have been mobilised in our recent disasters.

When I talk to the volunteers—and they are definitely a friendly bunch who like a chat—and I ask them why they spend their free time or even their retirement years volunteering, they tell me that they love being part of the community and that they like helping and knowing that there are times when their care can really make a difference to somebody.

Now, I might be biased, as patron of the Hawkesbury City Division of St John's, but I think they are some of the unsung heroes of our community. At the next community event, I'd encourage people to head over to that bunch in the dark green uniform to say hi and thank them for their unwavering service to our community.

I wish Superintendent Paul Barber, Officer in Charge, and the entire Hawkesbury City Division a wonderful 75th anniversary celebration.

I rise, on behalf of the people of Gippsland, with a very heavy heart today to extend my sympathies to the loved ones, the families and friends, of the four aviators missing off the coast of Queensland. The details of the crash are very sketchy at this point, but we do know that senior officers of the Australian Defence Force are now indicating that this is a recovery operation, where they are seeking to recover wreckage of the helicopter but also the four people on board. Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Office Class 2 Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs are missing and feared dead in this tragic event.

It's a terrible reminder to all of us of the risks to those people who are prepared to place themselves in harm's way to help those who can't necessarily help themselves—training, providing the capability to keep our nation safe but also being available for humanitarian aid missions across our region. So I extend, on behalf of the people of Gippsland, our condolences, our sympathies, to everyone impacted by this terrible accident, and I wish the rescuers, the people involved in the search and rescue operation, every safety as they go about their very difficult task.

'Australian women need more than an icon for a brighter future'—this was the title of an article that I wrote for the weekendWest Australian. It talked about how women heroes and icons inspire us but that what we need is social and economic change that empowers all women. The Matildas have captured the heart of the nation, drawing near-sellout crowds and watched by millions of Australians—and many more will tune in to tonight's match, including the people from my electorate of Swan. The Matildas have sold more jerseys for Nike than the Socceroos. Their national recognition must be applauded.

The shift in women's sports symbolises a brighter future for all women in Australia. Women, indeed, are making inroads in all areas. Women are 43 per cent of this parliament and the ministry. Last week, I celebrated my anniversary as the first female member for Swan in its 101-year history. On Saturday, Labor's Magenta Marshall was elected as the first woman to represent the state seat of Rockingham. She will be a fierce advocate for her home town, and she should be applauded.

But we should not stop at applause. What women need is structural and policy change, and Labor is driving this change by making child care cheaper, raising the minimum wage, improving workplace culture and making workplaces safer. This is making a difference, and, in one year, Australia has jumped 17 places in the World Economic Forum's gender equality ranking.

I recently had the privilege of meeting the Logan Dementia Choir. The choir was recently formed for those living with dementia in my electorate and across the City of Logan. However, the group also extends to supporting spouses, families and friends of those living with dementia. Most in this place would know what an insidious disease it is. Currently there are around 2,000 people with dementia across the City of Logan, and it is a cause close to my heart, having seen the impact on family members.

The Logan Dementia Choir was started by Ross Wiseman. His own diagnosis made him spiral into depression and question his own self-worth. Ross ended up losing his drivers licence and independence but not his passion for the community.

The Logan Dementia Choir focuses on reminiscence therapy, which helps those with dementia through music and also photos. After singing a few tunes, I was told they were on the hunt for new members but they wanted those with better voices! So, if you know somebody who wants to get involved, you can search for Logan Dementia Alliance on Facebook. I'm looking forward to the first performance by the Logan Dementia Choir at Memory Lane Cafe Underwood this November.

People on the New South Wales South Coast certainly know disasters and resilience. The small but beautiful villages of Bawley Point and Kioloa were the first villages to be hit by the 2019-20 Currowan bushfire. What do you do when you lose power and communications, you are cut off because the road's blocked, your food is rotting and you can't pump water because the power is out? These are the very real issues that people faced. But today I'm here to tell a good story, born out of disaster but turned into resilience, and the most unselfish thing people could do: leave a legacy and ensure the power system is more reliable.

Together, Endeavour Energy and the community, helped by federal funding and the state bushfire local economy recovery fund grant, started down the path to build New South Wales's first microgrid, with significant community input. Recently we celebrated an important milestone—the 100th solar panel and battery installed, which supplies and stores power, helping to ease the cost of living; and the microgrid, helping to keep the power on when disaster strikes. I witnessed the system working at the Kioloa rural fire service station.

I want to pay particular thanks to Endeavour Energy and their crews of workers that I personally witnessed working around the clock to restore power during the Currowan bushfire; to the local RFS brigades and marine rescue; and to the many local organisations and community members that were there for their community during the bushfire but were also there to celebrate this milestone. This is the first of its kind, and something that I hope we will see more of.

As parliamentarians we have the privilege of meeting people from all walks of life, and today I would like to share the story of a truly remarkable and talented man, Mr Alan Burge. Alan is an 83-year-old man who is still tuning pianos by ear. From a young age, Alan loved music, but it wasn't until a friend asked him to tune an untunable piano that his desire and passion for this unique skill set began. Reading all the workshop manuals he could and working with expert piano tuners, Alan's talent for tuning and love of pianos led him to become an expert and then to be elected as secretary of the piano tuners guild. It wasn't long before he became the go-to man for tuning pianos in South-East Queensland.

Alan has tuned pianos for celebrities like David Helfgott, as well as for the Brisbane Jazz Club and countless community and local music teachers. In fact, Alan has been expertly tuning and helping me restore a 1907 Australian made Beale piano in my electorate office in Wynnum. By doing so, we have preserved this unique piece of history that would otherwise have ended up in landfill.

I've always loved listening to the piano, but Alan's knowledge and expertise has inspired me to admire and appreciate the craftsmanship of pianos just as much as the music they make. As ABBA said, 'Without a song or a dance, what are we?' So I say, Alan, thank you for the music and the joy that you have brought to thousands of people with your passion for tuning pianos.

Sadly, last week marked the 44th anniversary of the tragic Appin coal mine explosion that took 14 lives and greatly affected the Macarthur region. Our community was severely shaken on 24 July 1979 when a devastating underground explosion took place at the Appin coal mine, resulting in the tragic loss of life of Alwyn Brewin, Francis Garrity, Ian Giffard, Geoffrey Johnson, Jurgen Lauterbach, Alexander Lawson, James Oldcorn, Peter Peck, Robert Rawcliffe, Roy Rawlings, Karl Staats, John Stonham, Roy Williams and Gary Woods. It left 38 children without fathers, and families were left to mourn and come to terms with the sudden shock to their small community of Appin.

I was unable to attend this year's service; I was out of the state on an agriculture committee inquiry. However, I'd like to thank event organisers for their ongoing work to ensure we never forget this disaster. We must never compromise on safety standards in the workplace and we must remain mindful of the vital role that the union movement has played and will continue to play in this field. We know that the Appin mine disaster had a long-lasting effect not just on the families affected but on the wider Macarthur community. We know people are still losing their lives in industrial accidents, mining, manufacturing, building et cetera, and we must be very mindful of the fact that people should be able to go to work knowing they'll return safely in the evening.

On Saturday afternoon, my wife, Rachel, and I had the absolute pleasure of attending the First Impressions Clothing Exchange fundraiser. It was a high tea and a fashion show. It was a wonderful afternoon, with over 100 locals there to celebrate that amazing community but also, importantly, to raise funds. FICE supports and empowers unemployed women, and what's most impactful about FICE is the people behind this community. It was wonderful to hear Sarah's story, and it took courage for her to share her story and stand up in front of that crowd. Also, at the launch in Lilydale earlier this year, I had the pleasure of hearing Trish's story, Bella's story and also Maria's story—amazing women. They talked about the sense of community that came through FICE and the opportunities. In particular, Bella is now in employment, and she wouldn't be in employment without the work of FICE.

To Renee and the team at Cire and FICE, thank you for everything you do for our community. It was a great day where our community came together. The Lilydale Rotary club, who are always there serving and looking after those in need, did the catering to make sure that the fundraiser was a stunning success. There were many raffles. Lots of small businesses in our community are doing it tough, but they rallied to support Renee and the team at FICE because they know how important it is to empower people throughout our community, particularly older women who are unemployed and vulnerable. FICE are looking to solve that problem at the grassroots—at the individual level. They're making a difference and changing lives, and I'm proud to be able to support them.

Last week I was pleased to host the Minister for Industry and Science, the Hon. Ed Husic, in my electorate of Hasluck, where I was able to introduce him to our vibrant and innovative local businesses: Nickola Estate and Oakover Wines. Situated on Whadjuk lands, these historic wineries reside in the beautiful Swan Valley, the second-oldest continuous wine-growing region in the country, with the first vines planted in South Guildford in 1830. The Yukich family settled in the area, and Nikola Yukich planted the first vines there in 1929. Today, Graeme Yukich and his family continue to make award-winning wines but have also transformed the estate into a multifaceted operation. The minister observed the winemaking process: from testing in the laboratory, the huge stainless steel fermentation vats and the barrelling in the wonderful old cellars, through to the bottling, labelling and capping of those bottles.

But there is so much more: award-winning coffee blends—roasting, packing and distribution—cheese and continental food import and distribution, contract wine production and bottling, and even a wedding chapel and concert venue at the sprawling Nikola Estate. The Yukich family provide a great example of innovation and value adding, and in so doing they're providing employment and training opportunities for local residents and contributing not just the local economy in my electorate but to the vitality and continued growth of the Swan Valley tourist region, which attracts hundreds of thousands of people every year.

Our hearts go out to all involved in the fatal aircraft incident last Friday at the Caboolture Airfield, located in the Longman community. It's a devastating time not only for the family and friends of the deceased but also for the paramedics, emergency service personnel, ground crew and survivor of the other aircraft. Husband and wife, David and Jan Maddern, sadly perished in this incident. David was a retired commercial pilot who had worked for Emirates and even TAA back in the day, and his wife spent over 25 years as a yoga instructor and fitness author in Dubai. Both were in their 60s, embarking on take-off in a light aircraft when they collided with another aircraft, whose pilot, thankfully, remained uninjured.

The Caboolture Airfield is a small airfield, but it is a tight family of aviation enthusiasts. It is operated by the Caboolture Aeroclub and is home to the Caboolture Warplane Museum, Caboolture Gliding Club and Caboolture Microlights, as well as numerous aviation training, service, repair and restoration businesses and not-for-profits. Everyone associated with these organisations will be feeling the trauma of this tragedy, and as a community we offer our sincerest condolences to them and the families and friends of David and Jan as well as the surviving pilot of the other aircraft. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. May David and Jan both rest in peace.

It is no secret that our arts, culture and entertainment industry has done it tough in the last decade. On top of the neglect from the previous government, the COVID pandemic has hit local venues hard. Live music in our communities is very important for the development of our culture, and our government is committed to supporting it. In our electorate of Tangney, we have helped the West Australian Music Industry Association secure a grant through the Live Music Australia program. This will ensure that their Friday showcase project gets Western Australian artists onstage and more families to enjoy our amazing culture of production. There are 400,000 talented Australians who work in this industry, which represents a share of our economy of $17 billion. Our commitment is to support it with an additional investment of almost $950 million over the next four years. The arts are the heart of our culture, and I'm so happy to see that our government is giving them the place they deserve.

On 6 July, I hosted the first regional aged-care summit in Mildura. Similar to my earlier Mildura Regional Health Workforce Summit in March, this event brought service providers and other key stakeholders to one place to discuss the dire issues facing Australia's aged-care sector in the regions and to workshop solutions to those issues. One thing was clear: there was a lot of passion in the room, from many professionals who are responsible for the wellbeing of our vulnerable older Australians. Mildura occupational therapist Kate Roberts, representing SARRAH, Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health, was one of those passionate people. Kate spoke specifically about the disparity that patients experience when trying to access allied health services, in comparison to those who are in aged-care facilities in the town itself. Those are funding constraints that actually impose those difficulties. She made an impassioned plea that the roof you sleep under should not determine your access to health care. This parallels what I have said, from my maiden speech onwards—that your postcode should not determine your health status. Policy needs to acknowledge the differences between urban and regional settings. Policy does not work with a one-size-fits-all approach. No matter where you live, Australians deserve equitable access to health services, including aged care.

New South Wales is better protected thanks to the arrival of the CH-47 Chinook at RAAF Base Richmond on the weekend. This is a permanent addition to the bush firefighting fleet that the New South Wales RFS has based in Richmond. It carries as much water or retardant as a large air tanker and has the capability to support firefighting operations at night. For this coming fire season, it will operate with a bucket of up to 10,000 litres before being fitted with an internal 11,000-litre tank. It has been purchased by the New South Wales government and transported to Australia by the Army and the RAAF. I was so pleased to join New South Wales Emergency Services Minister Jihad Dib and RFS Commissioner Rob Rogers as we watched this machine be unloaded by RAAF members. I want to thank RAAF Flying Officers Toby and Alex, who got the helicopter here safely and also the ADF's 1st Joint Movement Unit, the members of which were on hand to come and see the results of their huge logistical preparation. It is extraordinary to see the collaboration at the Richmond RAAF base. I was there with Wing Commander Michael Stuart-Watt, and it's really a testament to the ability of agencies to work together. We know that we are at the start of what could be a really challenging fire season, and I'd urge everybody to get ready now.

As a father first, I know the challenges and blessings of raising children, and I would agree with the old adage that it takes a village to raise a child. But imagine if that village wasn't properly equipped to cater for the child's needs. This is the reality of a lot of rural and regional areas across Queensland. There is more we could do, but today I want to celebrate a win for the northern part of my electorate. After considerable advocacy efforts from myself and the member for Herbert, Phil Thompson OAM—this is following the Albanese Labor's decision to cut funding from programs designed to help our community—the Townsville suburb of Idalia is soon to be the home of a new, vital community asset that is set to change the lives of local families raising children with autism. On the 12th of this month I was overjoyed to attend the turning of the first sod ceremony for the new AEIOU Foundation facility in Idalia. This new purpose-built facility will allow AEIOU to open spaces to support 12 additional children within the centre and an additional 40 children remotely. Not only is this a win for the coalition but it's a win for the people of Dawson. It's the village that it will take to raise the children with autism.

On 16 July the Australia Bangladesh Business Forum held their first gala dinner and awards ceremony at Ottimo House. It was great to have attended with many of my federal and state colleagues from western and south-western Sydney. The ABBF was created a year ago to promote and strengthen ties between the Australian and the Bengali communities as well as other multicultural communities across Sydney. They help to ensure that many local businesses can stay connected and informed, and offer them a platform and space to engage with hundreds of other businesses. They also provide businesses with educational opportunities and forums on how best to grow their businesses. So far over 300 businesses have joined the forum.

The work of not-for-profit organisations like ABBF is vital for communities in south-west Sydney, which is one of the most multicultural and linguistically diverse communities in Australia. It was a great night to recognise many of the amazing local businesses that operate in our part of Sydney, and I was honoured to be asked to speak. I'd like to thank the President of the ABBF, Abdul Ratan Khan, and its secretary, Brian Laul, for their invitation and hospitality. I'd also like to thank all those who worked hard to put together such an amazing night and congratulate all the businesses who are making a difference in our part of Sydney.

I recently had the opportunity to open the Oyster Bay Art and Craft Festival in my electorate. This festival is a local icon, a cornerstone of the Oyster Bay community and a favourite throughout the whole electorate of Hughes. This year the festival celebrated an important anniversary—its 50th year of operation. The Oyster Bay Art and Craft Festival attracts thousands of visitors, artists and stallholders each year with a common goal: to raise money for the wonderful Oyster Bay Public School. Oyster Bay's dance group opened the day's events and provided fabulous entertainment, and there were doughnuts spread throughout—enough to please every single school student who was present for the day.

This year, more than 180 works were showcased and dozens of handmade items were for sale, mostly from local craft vendors. I particularly thank the Oyster Bay P&C, led by President Janelle Reynolds, who said it's the wonderful support of parents and the Oyster Bay community that has helped build the event into what it is today. Since its inception, thousands of dollars have been raised as a result of this highly successful fundraising event. It's purchased state-of-the-art classroom furniture and learning resources, and it also allows the school to refurbish outdoor areas, including with the creation of a beautiful nature playground.

Lions Clubs International is the biggest service organisation in the world, and its domestic expression in my electorate is very important in regional communities, particularly in Fernvale, Lowood and Ipswich. Recently I had the pleasure of attending the changeovers for these local Lions clubs and making a toast to Lions Clubs International. These clubs have their own charm and do different things, but with the same ethos and vision they serve their local communities.

In Fernvale they held a prostate cancer awareness night at the local club and shared important information for those in attendance. But it's not just the club but also individuals in the club like Geoff Beattie, who worked so closely with the Leukaemia Foundation. They can be there at every single community event, and they help in disaster management as well. I thank Linda Moore for inviting me to the recent breakfast changeover.

In Lowood, I note that the Lowood Lions are particularly excited about the dog competition at the Lowood Show, and I thank them for the contribution they make to Lowood State High School in support of children from disadvantaged communities. I heard club president Yvonne Hawkins give one of the best speeches I've heard for a long time, on the importance of the arts in local communities.

I'm grateful to Vanna McGreevy and her husband, Bob, for the work they do at Ipswich Lions. Thank you for the work you do, particularly with DVAC and Remembrance Day and also in supporting my local primary schools with their breakfast clubs, particularly the school I attended, Ipswich East State School. Thanks to the local Lions.

Volunteers are at the heart of our community, and the ones we perhaps treasure most are those who put their lives on the line for others, like the CFA, who run to the site of fire, or the SES, who run to the sound of thunder. Last Saturday I was honoured to join our community at the annual Fireball held at Bramleigh Estate in Warrandyte. Fireball was formed in 2014. The committee wanted to do something for the four CFAs in our area: Warrandyte, Warrandyte North, Warrandyte South and Wonga Park. Each Fireball has raised significant funds, including for vehicles for the four CFAs. The most recent ball raised $60,000.

I would like to thank all of the volunteers who made this possible, including members of each of the CFAs and the sponsors. I note the generosity of Mary-Anne Lowe of Bramleigh and Greg Kennedy of the Grand Hotel. I single out the committee members: Michelle Lambert, Julie Quinton, Jaime Noye, Leasa Dyason, Angela Germech, Dinah Ward, Deanne Dickson, Geri Overberg and Katie Murphy. Additionally, I acknowledge Freya Dugan and Rohan Thornton, who were on previous committees. There was quite a moving moment at the end when the committee had a box of all the lessons that they'd learnt and they passed those on to Sandi Miller, editor of the Warrandyte Diary, who will take those lessons and turn Fireball into Thunderball for the SES. Well done, everyone.

One of the greatest joys I have as a local member is visiting schools and engaging with our younger students. One such occasion occurred recently when I visited Good Shepherd Catholic Primary School at Hoxton Park. I was met at the school by two students, Kevin and Amelia, and by the school principal, Leonie Sewell. The purpose of the visit was to speak to the year 6 students about my role as a local MP and present them with a certificate to commemorate their recent visit to Canberra, including to Parliament House. The students also asked me a range of questions that were thoughtful, insightful and very relevant. I'd like to thank the Good Shepherd school for their very kind invitation. The students were exemplary. Their behaviour was fantastic, and they are a credit to their families, their teachers and most definitely the school ethos.

Visits to schools like Good Shepherd remind me of the wonderful work that our teachers and their support staff do every day and of the importance of making sure that our children get the best start in life. I wish the students all the best as they finish up year 6 and look forward to high school in the new year. It will be a big step for them, but I know our community, teachers and schools will be there to support them in their endeavours.

Last Friday I had the honour of welcoming the Ambassador of Ukraine to Australia, Mr Vasyl Myroshnychenko, to the Sunshine Coast. The ambassador is a true advocate for his people in Ukraine. We had a wonderful afternoon. He was able to come and visit a business called Sunshine & Sons, which is actually in the electorate of Fairfax. Ted O'Brien, the member for Fairfax, and I joined the ambassador there. These guys are donating $43 for every bottle of gin to go towards landmine clearing in Ukraine. Ukraine is the most mined country in the world, and it will take decades for landmines there to be cleared. To Sunshine & Sons: well done, good effort and thank you very much for your assistance to the people of Ukraine.

We also went to Eniquest, which is a business in my electorate that provides generators for Bushmaster vehicles. The Bushmasters are now renowned for their service in Ukraine. Finally, we did a community forum, with 200 people from my electorate attending, where the ambassador spoke about the problems and the huge human toll on Ukrainians in his country. Slava Ukraini.

On Friday 7 July you couldn't find many parliamentarians—whether from this place or parliaments across our states and territories—not getting involved with a day that many consider to be world chocolate day. Many of us celebrated it in public on social media, and I can point to many notable examples. Many, whether aware of it on the day or not, celebrated the day in private.

The observance of 7 July as world chocolate day appears to date back only to 2009, but some say the origin of the day marked when chocolate was first introduced to Europe in 1550. Some might also say this day was confected, but, given we are talking about confectionery, anything is possible! In fact, in the US they list international chocolate day as 13 September, the birthdate of Milton S Hershey. But I digress.

Here in Australia we have brands like Haigh's, which I'm sure all of us—and our waistlines—are intimately familiar with. A brand founded in my state of South Australia by Alfred E Haigh back in 1915, Haigh's has grown exponentially and now has multiple stores across Australia: in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and even Canberra. This growth has continued, and Haigh's is now expanding its manufacturing arm in Salisbury South, in my electorate of Spence. In Spence we welcome all forms of manufacturing, from defence all the way to chocolate. To that, I simply say: in this case, manufacturing jobs in Adelaide's north never tasted so sweet.

One of the things that makes my electorate of McPherson such a wonderful place to live is our unique natural environment. From the pristine Currumbin and Tallebudgera valleys through to the estuaries and headlands of Coolangatta and Burleigh, our amazing environment is crucial to our way of life, and it's something I'm sure that everyone in my electorate is very keen to maintain and protect.

Last week I welcomed the shadow minister for the environment, fisheries and forestry, Senator Duniam, to the southern Gold Coast to see firsthand some of the amazing work that the community groups and individuals have been doing there for quite some time. We met with Rosalinde from Watergum alongside the banks of the Tallebudgera Creek. Watergum is doing innovative work looking at cane toad eradication and working very closely with some of the local Landcare groups. We also visited the Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary and saw the important work they're doing with the preservation of a number of species, including the Kroombit tinker frog and the eastern bristlebird. We heard a lot about the work that they are doing with koalas, in particular to treat those that have been injured, perhaps on our roads or elsewhere in the environment, and the work they are doing on the eradication of chlamydia amongst koalas.

The coalition has always been very supportive of the environment and will continue to be.

Last week I organised a lunch in Ipswich with the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, Kristy McBain, to meet with the mayor and councillors of the Somerset Regional Council and Ipswich City Council to talk about the urban precincts and thriving suburbs funding which this government is about to provide. The CEO of the Somerset region, Andrew Johnson, made it very clear that Somerset Regional Council would be apply for funding for a project up in Toogoolawah, and I commend that particular project they'll be undertaking.

Ipswich is also looking at work on the d'Arcy Doyle Place and the Ipswich Civic Centre, which originally was built when Gough Whitlam was the Prime Minister of Australia and Bill Hayden the member for Oxley, across Ipswich. He represented the area that I have the honour of representing now. Ipswich City Council is looking at an upgrade of the civic centre, and I will support that as I did previously with funding in relation to that area, but we need a whole-of-precinct look at Nicholas Street. I've been critical of the Ipswich City Council and the amount of money spent on a picture theatre there, but I support the council to make sure that the centre of Ipswich is everything it needs to be for the people of Ipswich. With a population of 240,000 and about 550,000 in the next few decades, the heart of the city needs to be upgraded, and I support the council in the upgrade of the civic centre.

In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.

I move:

That this House notes that:

(1) the Government has scrapped the monitoring of domestic airlines by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission at a time when Australian consumers are paying more for airfares but are subject to increased flight cancellations and delays;

(2) domestic airfares were 32 per cent higher in May 2023 than they were pre-pandemic in May 2019; and

(3) 1,700 flights were cancelled, and 12,000 flights arrived more than 15 minutes late in April 2023.

Taxpayers gave Australian Airlines $5.3 billion during the pandemic. This money came with the direction that the ACCC monitor the recipients of it. Airlines are heavily affected by government decision-making. Regional flights can enter Sydney airport only because regional slots were ring-fenced by previous coalition governments. When the coalition brought the cap slot system in, the slots provided a fair way for Australia's aviation needs and demands to be balanced. While the original idea was that no company owned the slots, over decades this has been perverted by sneaky practices that mean that the slots have become somewhat the property of certain airlines.

Qantas exploit the scheme by holding on to slot scheduling a flight, if only to cancel it at the last minute, ensuring one thing: no room for competition. The ACCC found this practice has resulted in inefficient use of slots. If you want cheaper fares and better services, you need competition, and Bonza can't even get in to Sydney airport. The ACCC highlighted these barriers to competition and capacity in its most recent report. Indeed, Sydney-Melbourne is the second-busiest airline route in the world. It's predominantly serviced by Qantas and Virgin. Nearly one in 10 flights on this route was cancelled in April of this year. They effectively rent space they don't use to deny others the use of it.

Qantas has enormous capacity to control the aviation market by being one of the biggest and most effective lobbyists here in Canberra. The taxpayer stumps up billions of dollars regardless of Qantas Group's massive position in the market. The Labor government denied Qatar Airways additional access rights recently. I asked the question, did Qantas lobby the government about this decision? Is there any other company in Australia that has more than a 60 per cent share of such a big market? There's no bank, telco or supermarket that controls nearly two-thirds of the sector. Would we allow Woolworths to have so much market share that it could determine the price of all groceries?

We now have an absurd situation where domestic airfare prices are 32 per cent higher in nominal terms in May 2023 compared to May 2019 while the service costs have decreased. In the same period, the cost of jet fuel fell to almost half of what it was, from $259 per barrel in June last year to $137. In April alone, 1,700 flights were cancelled, including 9.2 per cent of flights between Sydney and Melbourne, 8.7 per cent of flights between Sydney and Canberra and 5.7 per cent of flights between Sydney and Brisbane.

Taxpayers paid Qantas billions of dollars during COVID, and what did they get in return? A CEO with a seven-figure bonus and a lecture on their corporate political views regarding the Voice. Qantas's profit is expected to soar to $2.5 billion, while its ranking in world airlines has plummeted from fifth to 17th. I think it's a case of placing profit ahead of passengers. Delays, cancellations and lost baggage saw its Roy Morgan rating as the sixth most-trusted brand in the country crash to 40th place. In all this Qantas has never acknowledged taxpayers kicking in all the money they did when it was in need.

It's time for the Albanese Labor government to show that it's not beholden to Qantas and to allow competition to benefit consumers. Qantas must lift its game if it has any claim to the revered status of our national carrier.

Is there a seconder?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Flight cancellations and delays are a problem. They impose costs on members of our society. The increasing frequency of cancellations and flight delays is something that does merit very close examination and potentially a public policy response.

What are the problems with flight cancellations and flight delays? First of all, there's the time that is wasted. There's time sitting on the tarmac. It is not just the time—sitting on the tarmac for 30 minutes or 60 minutes or spending 30 minutes or 60 minutes in the airport lounge or the airport terminal—quite often there's significant cost at the other end of the trip. You might have missed a meeting or a family gathering, which was the whole point of the trip. In the worst-case scenario people have had the inconvenience and expense of staying overnight in a place they didn't plan to en route to the place they originally had planned to. Then of course there are the other costs associated with the added uncertainty that we're now experiencing. Many people will now fly in advance—maybe the night before or hours in advance. These are all costs that are real but are difficult to measure.

What are the causes of flight cancellations and flight delays and their increasing frequency in our system? This is something that merits very close examination. As has been pointed out by a number of commentators, there is some data to suggest that it is worth examining whether or not slot hoarding is occurring. The Paris review was handed down two years ago. It was a very vigorous analysis of slot management across our airports. Its recommendations warrant very close examination, particularly in light of the behaviour of airlines since that time.

The committee of which I'm the chair—the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics—is undertaking a major review of competition. One of the sectors it's looking at is the aviation sector. We have already obtained evidence from Bonza and Virgin in relation to their participation in the airline sector. We will be seeking evidence from Qantas and Rex. We will also be seeking evidence from Sydney airport and other airports. Of course, we also have occurring concurrently with that the major aviation white paper.

So we do have a significant amount of policy work underway, but it is imperative that this work be undertaken carefully, because in order to design the best policy response to what we're seeing we need to make sure we fully understand the causes of what we are observing. Are we seeing increased flight cancellations due to slot hoarding? Are they due to an increased prevalence of mechanical faults due to underinvestment in maintenance? Are they due to the increased prevalence of bad weather? Are they due to systemwide issues?

We need to dig down into the data and fully understand what's going on in our network before we jump to any conclusions. This government, after a decade of inaction from the previous government, is now undertaking that work through my committee's examination of market concentration of the airlines but also of course, and even more importantly, through the white paper that is expected in 2024.

The monitoring by the ACCC, which has been very useful, was always due to end after three years. That was the deadline which the previous government set. What this government has done is say that, the monitoring having expired at the deadline that the previous government set, the Australian government's Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics will continue to publish reporting on domestic airfares on a monthly basis. So there will be transparency through that mechanism, and, if necessary, the ACCC can be given a further reference.

So what we have in place is the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics undertaking a competition inquiry which will no doubt feed into the broader aviation white paper, and we have reporting by the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. And, of course, this government at a more systemic level has substantially increased penalties for any company engaging in anticompetitive behaviour. So action is being taken on a problem that has been around for a long time.

In the year ending May 2023, more than 55 million Australians flew on an Australian domestic flight. Whether for business or leisure, one thing every Australian traveller will agree on is that the cost of flights is surging and flight delays can be expected. Travellers are experiencing almost double the rate of flight cancellations and a 50 per cent increase in delayed flights compared to the long-term average. A staggering 12,000 flights were delayed by more than 15 minutes in April this year. In that same period, 1,700 flights were cancelled.

Following the pandemic years of little travel, particularly for leisure, Australians are being encouraged to holiday in our own beautiful, unique country, yet the cost of a flight has grown significantly. A flight in 2023 is more expensive than one in 2019, greatly impacting Australians' ability to travel. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission made their final report on airline competition. Their report confirmed what every traveller already knew: the cost of flights has increased. This report showed that the cost of a flight in May this year had increased by 32 per cent in one year.

In my electorate of Capricornia, Rockhampton Airport is the gateway to Central Queensland and is the main aviation port for the region. The cost of a one-way flight to Brisbane can be over $400 in peak periods. The price of aviation fuel has halved since its peak in mid-2022 and is on a par with pricing seen in 2018. Aviation fuel was down to $137 per barrel in May this year compared to the $259 per barrel seen in June 2022. However, the consumer hasn't seen the drop passed on when booking with their chosen carrier.

In 2020, the former coalition government directed the ACCC to monitor airlines for three years during the pandemic to ensure the interests of Australian travellers were being looked after. This ACCC monitoring was put in place to ensure essential air connectivity was maintained to preserve critical aviation capacity and protect supply chains. As part of this directive, the ACCC monitored the price of airfares, costs and profits in the domestic air passenger sector. In the ACCC's May report, they highlighted that domestic airfare prices were 13 per cent higher in real terms in May 2023 compared to May 2019.

Not only was the ACCC to monitor airfare costs; it was also to observe the level of capacity the airlines were putting on each route and whether this was occurring in a way that might damage competition. It was noted that airlines are taking advantage of policies across major Australian airports which allow them to retain a landing and take-off slot for an indefinite amount of time. This is impeding new or expanding airlines acquiring the time slots needed to launch new services which would drive down airfares.

When travellers are being slugged by high ticket prices, more cancellations and lengthy delays, now is not the time for this government to pull out of monitoring the industry. This government's hands-off approach to the sector will only compound the struggle for reasonably priced airfares and will affect Australia's domestic market.

Throughout the three years of the ACCC monitoring the aviation sector, it was noted that the current Airline Customer Advocate is generally ineffective. There is a clear need for an independent new system for resolving disputes between airlines and customers, one which is a truly independent, external, dispute resolution ombudsman scheme with the ability to make binding decisions. The ACCC also considered that there is merit for the government to consider a consumer compensation scheme for delayed or cancelled flights.

More needs to be done to make the aviation sector competitive, while also ensuring Australians aren't receiving a raw deal with the cost of airfares. In these years following the COVID-19 pandemic we need to be encouraging domestic travel to boost the economy for our regional communities. Ensuring that airfares are reasonably priced will go a long way to encouraging tourism back into the regions. This government must extend a direction to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to keep track of the aviation sector. With the barrel price of aviation fuel dropping and new competition through airlines like Bonza, ceasing watch over the current players in the industry is a ludicrous decision by this government.

I thank the member for this motion. The truth is that airfares remain ludicrously high in this country, and any honourable member that has any clue whatsoever would agree. Domestic airfares were 32 per cent higher in May of this year than they were before COVID. A Darwin to Canberra flight will range from 500 bucks to over 1,100 bucks, depending on the airline, and that's a one-way ticket only. Is it any wonder that we have not yet seen passenger levels recover to pre-pandemic levels? In April this year, 4.6 million passengers flew, and that is only 92 per cent of April 2019 levels and only marginally more than this time last year. I'm certainly not surprised about that.

There is some good news in the latest ACCC airline monitoring report released in June. It found that airfares continued to fall this year, as pent-up demand for travel eases and the price of jet fuel continues to fall—the latter by almost half since its June 2022 peak. The price of discount airfares reduced slowly by 14 per cent in real terms between February and May 2023, and that's a very good thing, but it's still too high. Qantas is expecting a record $2.4 billion in profits this year, which is still above pre-pandemic levels, so we shouldn't forget that. The price drop isn't across the board. The price of several routes has more than doubled, including Brisbane to Darwin, which is up 172 per cent to $622 or thereabouts. I've often called out uncompetitive behaviour in the airline industry and I will continue to do so.

Prices are not the only metric that is still not right. The industry cancelled 3.9 per cent of flights in April alone—and that's over 1,700 flights—compared to a long-term average of 2.1 per cent. One airline cancelled 8.1 per cent of its flights, and only 71.8 per cent of flights were on time, compared to an historical level of 81.5 per cent. So that's clearly not good enough.

We know the root cause of the issue is mostly a lack of competition. The duopoly market structure, which has largely been the situation in Australia, has made it one of the most concentrated industries in the country, and Aussies are sick of picking up the tab—nowhere more than in the Northern Territory, where the high cost of flying interstate is an issue constantly raised with me. Territorians are often faced with sky-high airfares and tough choices when hoping to visit family and friends. Along with the community, tourism operators and businesses also feel the effect of higher airfares. We know that Darwin is a magnificent and popular tourist destination, but people need to be able to get to the Top End and get from the Top End to visit family and friends at a reasonable price.

Connectivity is a necessity for us, not a luxury. I'll continue to fight to make sure that Territorians get a fair deal. In fact, when I was elected I launched a campaign called Fair Fares NT because the situation was very bad and it was clear that there was price-gouging going on when it came to our Northern Territory routes. I also helped to bring a Senate transport committee to Darwin in that first term of parliament to look at how airlines determine prices in country areas of our nation. I regularly remind the airlines of their responsibility to the people of the Northern Territory. Indeed, in Qantas's case, NT is in its very name.

Only today my office sent a very clear message to a major airline about the cost of flights in and out of the Territory. Going forward, the domestic airfare index will continue to be published monthly by the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, and I want to acknowledge the work of the ACCC. Our government is committed to delivering an aviation white paper to set the scene for the next generation of growth and development across the aviation sector. What it absolutely must do is ensure that the gouging of regional areas of Australia and the NT stops.

I heartily agree with some of what the member for Solomon has just said. Regional areas are captives of high air prices because many regional people—whether they're travelling by air for tourism, for business or perhaps most importantly for medical reasons—have no other way of getting from their home communities to a capital city. Unfortunately, for some regional people, it is a case of: 'When in pain, catch a plane.' This particular motion brought to the parliament by the member for Wide Bay is a good one. What I fear, though—and the member for Solomon just belled the cat—is a review in the form of an aviation white paper. Australia is being strangled by reviews.

We've got to fix it.

We have to fix it. I'll take him on that interjection. No government has ever done more for aviation than the coalition government did when it was in power from 2013 to 2022. Indeed, when there were calls by those opposite to buy Qantas in 2014 when it was going not that well and the skies were not that blue, we resisted that urge. We resisted that clamour of populism by those opposite. Then, of course, COVID hit and planes were grounded. Virgin was going very badly. Its books were terrible. But I pay tribute to Paul Scurrah, Jayne Hrdlicka, who took over from him as CEO, and others in Virgin for holding the line, and I commend the government for holding its nerve because running airlines is not the remit of government, as Jayne Hrdlicka would know and as her predecessor would know as well.

We do have an issue with the prices of tickets. We do have an issue with cancellations of flights. I know this firsthand. I missed a wedding recently because of the cancellation of a flight at very short notice, and my wife and I were unable to make the connecting flights to enable us to attend that very important event. We're lucky that during COVID we were able to fly. The airlines need credit too for that fact because we know that planes in the air mean jobs on the ground. They were able to keep many people engaged, but, of course, it came at a huge expense to government and to taxpayers through the Domestic Aviation Network Support program, the Regional Airline Network Support program and the Tourism Aviation Network Support program. DANS, RANS and TANS meant that people could still fly to Cairns. It meant that people could still get on a plane and fly to a regional area for whatever reason. Perhaps even more importantly, it meant that people in regional areas could also fly anywhere they wished.

This government must end the delays over the recommendations of the Harris review into demand management at Sydney Airport. This government is now in government, and it's a shame that the minister for transport is not in here talking on this very important motion, because she should be. Indeed, she does have questions to answer. She has questions to answer over the staffing in flight control towers. She has answers to give on the Harris review and on why this government, the Labor government, has scrapped the monitoring of domestic airlines by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission at a time when Australian consumers are paying way too dearly for airfares and are subject to increased flight cancellations and delays. What's the minister doing about it? I'd say diddly-squat. She's not doing anything. You very rarely see or hear her talking about aviation on television or radio or in newspapers, and she should. She's the minister, and with being a minister comes responsibility.

When I was the transport minister, we kept Virgin, Qantas, QantasLink and Rex in the skies, even coming out of COVID. We kept those companies afloat at a time when, worldwide, so many aviation companies—dozens, in fact—went bankrupt. They didn't under our watch. This government needs to do more and it needs to do it quickly.

This motion from the member for Wide Bay sums up with, I think, some very useful statistics the situation with respect to the airline industry, which I think most of us in this House are very familiar with. Whilst I for one was not aware of the precise statistics, nothing in this motion surprises me with respect to the issue of the higher prices that tickets are being sold for, the number of cancellations that have occurred, the number of flights that are arriving late et cetera.

The first point I want to make is on the critical part of the motion which talks about the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission not monitoring the domestic airlines any further. That monitoring ended on 30 June because that is exactly what the previous government had prescribed it ought to do when they introduced the monitoring back in 2020. So it was their decision to end it on 30 June, and that decision was simply continued by the incoming Albanese government.

But the real issue, even with respect to that, is that monitoring the statistics is one thing and actually doing something about it is another. Indeed, I don't know of too many other areas where governments of all persuasions, state and federal, monitor situations and are able to do much more about it. We live, supposedly, in a free-market society where there are no controls about how anyone who provides services operates, and that is clearly the case with respect to the airline industry.

I say to members opposite that, whilst I can understand their concerns about the delays that are occurring right now—we just heard the member for Riverina talking about how he missed attending a wedding because of that—and the price-gouging that is going on, I didn't hear much from them when airline maintenance services were being either offshored or outsourced or when, in the middle of COVID, people like the dnata workers were totally excluded from any support payments. Yet the truth of the matter is that they were Australians, just like those who were getting supported. They were left out, and I didn't hear members opposite standing up for them at the time.

I refer members to a Crikey article that appeared only today, from Michael Sainsbury, which I believe perfectly sums up the situation with Qantas right now. I suggest to members that they take a moment to read the article. I'm not going to go through it, but it certainly sums up the situation with respect to the airline industry and Qantas in particular. It highlights the fact that Qantas is projected to make a $2.4 billion profit this year, or perhaps even a bit higher, whilst at the same time it not only engages in what I think we all know is price-gouging but has offshored most of its maintenance, to the point that not only are delays being caused because the maintenance can't be done here but one has to question whether that maintenance is being done at the same levels as when it was all done in Australia. The places where it is done in Australia have been allowed to run down to the point whereby it would make a huge difference if Qantas actually injected some money into ensuring that those places were given the support that they need. Indeed, it's a concern to me because, quite frankly, we all fly on their planes and the truth of the matter is that they are probably not getting the attention that they should.

I recently spoke to one of my good friends, who is actually an aircraft engineer. He works part time because of his age. He could work full time tomorrow anywhere in Australia because of the shortage of engineers that we have in the industry right now. Again, they are allowed to be run down because all that work was offshored, nobody here bothered to do the training and none of the companies here bothered to do what we would refer to as the apprenticeship training that gets them into the job in the end. The outsourcing, the offshoring and now even the maintenance of the old fleet are all part of the problem of delays, and Qantas know they don't have any real competition. They do what they want to do, and that is causing all the problems that the member for Wide Bay refers to in this motion.

If only I had the benefit of the last portion of the member for Makin's contribution. I've got to say I agree with much of it. That's the reason why I congratulate the member for Wide Bay for bringing this matter to the attention of parliament and, in particular, the Federation Chamber. What we're seeing here is, effectively, the cancellation of the oversight mechanism of the ACCC's as it relates to domestic airlines. Whilst that has only been in place for three years, it was an important measure implemented by the then government on the back of significant financial support provided by the public via its federal government to ensure airlines survived the shockwave that came with the global pandemic. But, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, to end that oversight at a time where we see domestic airfare prices 32 per cent higher in nominal terms in May 2023 compared to May 2019, or 13 per cent higher in real terms, I think is a retrograde step that will only exacerbate the kinds of things that the member for Makin was referring to.

It's because of this oversight and the quarterly reporting being undertaken—or that had been undertaken until the decision to cancel support for the program—by the ACCC that I can stand here and say to the Federation Chamber that domestic airfare prices are 13 per cent higher in real terms in May 2023 compared to May 2019, that 1,700 flights were cancelled in April of 2023, that 1,200 flights arrived more than 15 minutes late in that same month or, equally, that the cost of jet fuel is almost half what it was in June 2022. These are important metrics which effectively hold a domestic airline carrier's feet to the fire so that there can be discussion and debate around why it is that we're seeing this price activity.

Whilst the member for Makin referred to Qantas, I'm also particularly interested in other aviation providers around the nation. For some people who live in metropolitan settings, a flight is nice to have. There are lots of people who live in regional and remote Australia for whom flights are a must-have. I invite the member for Makin—indeed, any member of this place—to visit the fabulous south-east of South Australia. One of the ways they can get there is to fly Rex from Adelaide to Mount Gambier. I'm sure the member for Making has done that on occasion, and other members have perhaps travelled from Adelaide to Port Lincoln. The price of those flights really does make your jaw drop.

The people I worry about the most are people who need to book those flights in a quasi-emergency, where a loved one or a friend has been airlifted by the RFDS to Adelaide and you want to be there, so you've booked that flight at the last minute, or where you've finally got a call from a specialist to say: 'If you can get to Adelaide tomorrow morning then I can see you.' Then what my constituents do is to jump online and see the flights; invariably, they're the most expensive flights available, but they take them anyway, because, for many of them, driving to Adelaide and back is just not an option.

I want this mechanism to continue because I want to hold carriers' feet to the fire. I'm not against the idea that they make reasonable profits; I think that's perfectly acceptable. But I want to ensure that, as has been described by others, there's the kind of information you need to make sure you can highlight what ought to be happening with prices in those circumstances.

This private member's motion on airline monitoring is an important motion, because, as you can see, the government plays an important role in the aviation industry by setting the regulations and the safety standards but also, very importantly, by monitoring competition. If we look at the last few years, with COVID and then leading out of COVID, we know that this is a very important job. We have seen increases in airline tickets and the cutting of a range of staff from our wonderful airlines. So it is very important that we keep that competition. That job includes the good work that the ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, has been doing to ensure that airlines operating within Australia are compliant with the Competition and Consumer Act.

Back in 2020, the former Treasurer issued a direction to the ACCC to monitor prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of domestic air passenger transport services in Australia for a period of three years, and this direction came at a time of severe disruption, as I said earlier, during the pandemic—disruption especially to passengers but also to the airline sector, as no-one could actually travel because of the border closures. When giving this direction, the then Treasurer also gave an end date of three years. So it was always planned for it to end at this point, and the current government in no way altered those directions of the previous government.

Now, those opposite started the monitoring and they decided when to end the monitoring. They can try to perhaps hide the facts all they want, but this was their decision. While the direction expired in June 2023, the Australian government's Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics will continue to publish reporting around domestic airfares on a monthly basis, and I know that that will be done because I've had discussions with the transport minister on this, because it's a very, very important issue in terms of ensuring that consumers have choice and that there's competition in the industry. I know that our government will be keeping a very strong eye on this particular situation, and if the situation requires it, then the Australian government will resume the ACCC monitoring.

Airlines play an important role in our nation. We are an island nation, a huge nation, and we are solely dependent on airlines when we travel from cities to cities over vast, great distances. Most people in Europe travelling the distance that all of us in here travel every week, on and off, would be going through three different countries. So it's important that we monitor these airlines to ensure that they're doing the right thing but also to ensure that there's fair competition. There has been talk recently about other airlines coming into the market as well, especially in the international market.

The Albanese government also committed to delivering an aviation white paper, to set the scene for the next generation of growth and development across the aviation sector and to ensure that there's competition working in support of the consumers, the Australian public. We saw a decade of inaction by the opposition. This will provide a new chance for us as a nation to chart the opportunities for the future. The white paper includes considering as a priority the economic reforms needed to improve productivity across the sector, such as addressing skill shortages and competitiveness, to ensure the sector is appropriately positioned to deliver aviation services for the Australian public and international visitors out to 2050. So it is a vision for a number of years.

The white paper process will also consider consumer protection issues and stakeholder views on options to improve the complaint-handling process. We've seen this reported in the media consistently since COVID. It's very important that we look at this and implement measures to ensure that there's protection for the customer. The green paper is due out in the coming months. We're looking forward to continuing to work with the industry, communities and other aviation stakeholders during the white paper process, which is expected to wrap up by 2024, and in advancing aviation productivity and competition in Australia.

The time for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Government's commitment to Medicare through the largest increase to Medicare rebates in thirty years and a tripling of the bulk billing incentive;

(2) acknowledges the Government's commitment to making it easier to see a doctor, making medicines cheaper, and strengthening Medicare after nine years of cuts, neglect and rorts; and

(3) calls on the Opposition to support the Government's policy to halve the cost of medicine for over six million Australians.

I'm delighted to take this opportunity to talk about the importance of our universal healthcare system through Medicare and what the Albanese Labor government is doing to strengthen and expand it. Before entering this place I worked in the health sector. One of the key things I learnt through that experience was the importance of early intervention and preventative health.

Cost is a significant barrier for people being able to access health care appropriately. I'm pleased to say that this principle of affordable health care is core to the way this government is strengthening Medicare. In the May budget we announced that we are tripling the bulk-billing incentive for regular appointments. This is the largest-ever increase in the incentive, meaning more Australians will be able to see a bulk-billing GP. We know how hard it is to get in to see a GP, let alone a bulk-billing one, so we are incentivising more GPs for more sessions to be bulk-billed.

GPs told me they want to keep bulk-billing because they know it is important for their patients to be able to see them in a timely manner. Under the previous government, former health minister Peter Dutton tried to introduce a co-payment and permanently eliminate bulk-billing in 2014. When that didn't work they turned around and froze Medicare rates for over six years. While the Medicare rate was frozen, certainly the cost of providing surgery wasn't. The number of GPs bulk-billing dropped significantly, but now we are acting to turn that around. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has called this massive investment 'a game changer' for general practice in Australia and one that is certainly needed.

Of course this isn't all we are doing to improve Medicare. This government knows that the cost-of-living pressures can and do have a very real impact on people's ability to access health care. That's why on 1 January we reduced the price paid for PBS prescriptions by $12.50 a script. The maximum you'll be out of pocket for scripts has been cut from $42.50 to $30. This means that, for the first time in the 75-year history of the PBS, the co-payment for general scripts has fallen. This measure alone has saved people in Boothby more than $900,000 on more than 93,000 prescriptions since 1 January this year.

Starting on 1 September, and in three tranches, over 300 PBS listed medications will be available for 60-day dispensing at your local pharmacy. This will save on trips to the chemist and cut out-of-pocket expenses for consumers. It also means patients won't need to go back to their GP so often just to get a prescription renewal, freeing up GPs to see other patients. As we've seen from other countries that have longer dispensing, in some instances up to two decades worth—sorry, two decades of long prescriptions, not two decades per prescription—it will lead to better compliance with taking medications, which leads to better health outcomes.

This change means patients living with a chronic stable condition will be able to buy two months worth of these medicines for the price of a single prescription, rather than the current 30-day supply. People with a Medicare card who are prescribed the relevant medications will save up to $180 every year per medicine, and concession card holders will save $43.80 a year for each eligible medicine. Longer prescriptions will halve the cost of medicines for over six million Australians, many of them older Australians, and it will also free up GP time. I would encourage those opposite to back this important reform to our health system.

Finally, in my electorate of Boothby we're getting on with the once-in-a-generation investment of $400 million to upgrade and expand Flinders Medical Centre in Bedford Park. The upgrade will equip Flinders to deliver high-quality services to southern Adelaide, decrease ramping and dramatically reduce pressure on the overall hospital network. I was delighted to be able to bring the Prime Minister and Premier Peter Malinauskas to Flinders earlier this year to announce the fast-tracking of 26 new acute inpatient beds at Flinders to ease the pressure on the hospital's emergency department. Later this year I hope to announce the site of the new urgent care clinic. Labor built Medicare and our universal health system, and Labor's the only party that can be trusted to deliver these kinds of major projects that make a real difference in Australians' lives.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I thank the member for Boothby for introducing this topic and opening the door to shine a light on the disparity between regional areas and our metropolitan cousins. I'll give credit where credit is due: the increase in the Medicare rebate was very welcome at a time when our communities are hurting across Australia. It was getting to a point where it was almost financially impossible for some people to actually go to the doctor because of the gap. Again, credit where credit is due—particularly for remote and rural Australia.

However, that's where the kudos stops. I have to say that it doesn't make it any easier to see a doctor in regional and rural Australia. Many people know that my father was a doctor in Kempsey in the seventies and eighties, and there were more doctors in Kempsey in the 1970s then there are now. It is literally impossible to get in to see a doctor in South West Rocks, Crescent Head or our smaller communities, and there are very lengthy waiting lists to get into see a doctor—when you can—who hasn't already closed their books. This problem has been compounded by Labor increasing the distribution priority areas across the state, and what we have seen is doctors go from these regional areas to more metropolitan areas. And you can't blame them. You can't blame them because this is their business. It is their core business. Yes, they care for their patients, but, if they're raising a family and things are tough, they're going to go to areas where they can see more patients and can charge more.

Before I go on, I'll go back one step to bulk billing. We will be watching very closely in our communities, because across Cowper only two per cent of doctors are currently bulk billing. With the increase in the payment, I'll be watching very closely and hoping that those doctors accept with gratitude the taxpayers' money and allow further bulk billing across the board for those who most need it. I'm happy to pay. Most people are happy to pay, but there has to be that availability to be bulk billed for the vulnerable and those less fortunate.

I'll get back to the distribution priority areas. In our last term I spent a lot of time ensuring that the DPA applied to all of Cowper because of the problems that we were facing in Crescent Head, South West Rocks and Bellingen. Unfortunately, the decision to expand the DPA has meant that now people are no longer able to see a doctor because either the books have closed or the doctors have moved.

We should also look at Labor's decision to halve the mental health sessions from 20 to 10. People struggled through COVID. We've all heard the statistics of how it's going to affect our young people and how it's affecting those who are now going to university. Mental health is high on the priority of all governments—all levels of government—so why would you halve the mental health sessions available from 20 to 10? You don't just get to 10 appointments and go, 'I'm fixed! I'm all good!' I've spoken to many psychologist, and one of them put it succinctly: you wouldn't ration your diabetes medication. You wouldn't ration medication for another ailment. Why would you ration the amount of times you can see a psychologist to get the treatment that you need? So what I'm asking Labor to do is consider the regions when they develop their policy. Consider the people who live in the country, who are the backbone and who put the food on the table for us to all eat in the future.

In my electorate of Bennelong, just like in many across our country, our community is struggling with the costs of living. In and amongst that, of course, I've had countless constituents approach me to raise their concerns about the increased costs of seeing a doctor, and I understand why. I vividly recall a time when visiting a doctor was free. But now, in Bennelong, like most communities, gap fees of $30, $40, $50 and even up to $80 have become the norm. In my adult life, seeing a doctor has gone from being free to being $80. In the past decade, the freeze on Medicare rebates imposed by the Liberal-National government has forced doctors to seek alternative means of covering costs, leading to the normalisation and proliferation of gap fees. These fees now place immense strain on families who have already been grappling with the rising costs of living. In that time, we've witnessed the erosion of our healthcare system with increasing out-of-pocket expenses and growing gaps in medical coverage.

We cannot ignore that nearly a million Australians are forced to forego essential health services and medicines every year due to these costs. This is an unacceptable reality and one that the new government is committed to addressing. Our actions thankfully speak louder than our words. We are committed to rebuilding general practice, and, after nine years of cuts and neglect by the former government, we are resolute in continuing to make Medicare stronger for all Australians. The historic investments announced in the first two Albanese budgets are unparalleled as we are tripling the bulk-billing incentive, the most significant increase in its 40-year history. This move will benefit over five million children and their families, along with more than seven million pensioners and concession cardholders, making it easier for them to see a bulk-billed GP. This unprecedented increase will provide benefit to an estimated 67,000 people in my electorate of Bennelong. The 2023-24 budget has delivered much-needed support, totalling around $6.1 billion, into general practice and introduced reforms to empower GPs. This includes the $3½ billion in bulk-billing incentives, which I've just mentioned. This will ease the rising cost-of-living pressures for millions of Australians. Moreover, we are investing in a diverse health workforce with targeted scholarships and incentives to encourage more health workers to serve in regional and rural areas, addressing the healthcare disparities that exist in our regions.

A crucial part of our focus is on making medicines cheaper and more accessible for those with ongoing health conditions. From 1 September, around 36,000 members of my community in Bennelong and over six million Australians across the country will benefit from cheaper medicines, with 60-day prescriptions for a range of medicines. This initiative means that individuals with a Medicare card buying those medicines will save up to $180 a year while concession card holders will save about $43.80 per eligible medicine. It's a significant step forward in relieving the financial burden on households while ensuring that their health needs are met. This measure, combined with the steps we have already taken by reducing the PBS co-payment for anyone with a Medicare card to $30 down from $42, will help put $130 million back into the pockets of hardworking Australians.

I enjoy receiving updates on how much this measure has been taken up by my community in Bennelong. Already since the announcement of that policy, locals have saved almost $1 million on over 81,000 scripts handed out in Bennelong. The significance of these investments and initiatives cannot be overstated. They're more than just policies; they represent a genuine commitment by this government to fix Medicare after the decade of neglect from those opposite. By rebuilding general practice, tripling the bulk-billing incentive and making medicines more affordable, we are putting health care back within reach of those who need it most. It's not just about addressing immediate needs; it's about investing in our long-term wellbeing and our population.

Our government's commitment to Medicare is unwavering, and we are determined to make health care more accessible and more affordable for all Australians no matter where you live. This is not just about talking; it's about the action that we've delivered now in two budgets. Labor created Medicare and will always act in its best interest.

Our universal healthcare system promises all Australians access to a full range of quality healthcare services when and where they're needed without financial hardship. It is the responsibility of our government to provide cost-effective, transparent and fair access to medicines. In recent years, the out-of-pocket costs to patients of GP visits and of medicines have become an increasing burden in a time of severe cost-of-living pressures. For this reason I have supported the Albanese government's decision to reduce the patient contribution to medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That 30 per cent reduction in cost represents very real and very significant savings for Australian households.

We need our medications to be not just affordable; they have to be available as well. Australia imports more than 90 per cent of its medications. We are reliant on international supply chains. From 1 July new regulations mandate larger onshore stock holdings of some medications in this country, which may help, but we'd also benefit from a review of our sovereign manufacturing capacity and how our government can support it better. While our domestic market is small, we have established supply chains and proximity to Pacific markets. This government should expand our manufacturing capacity, decrease sovereign risk and support our Pacific partners by fostering local manufacturing of medicines.

Many of my Kooyong constituents previously expressed frustration regarding the need for unnecessary and costly visits to GPs for repeat prescriptions and the limits placed on supply in our pharmacies. For that reason I suggested, and was really happy to see the government adopt in the 2023 budget, a change in prescribing laws, permitting up to 60 days worth of medication and 12-month scripts for more than 300 commonly prescribed medications. Those changes will be rolled out in three tranches from September. They will decrease the price of those 300 medications by up to $180 per medication per year. Australians will save more than $1.6 billion over the next four years through the introduction of 60-day prescriptions. As an Independent member but also as a doctor aware of the stress and the cost of medications for many Australians, I am truly proud to have been the first to propose this initiative to this House in this parliament and to have the government respond promptly and appropriately.

We've seen what the government can do when it takes scientific advice and it acts decisively and effectively. We need more of the same in our health care and in our economy. All funds saved by the government through this initiative will be reinvested into community pharmacies. They will strengthen the range and the depth of services provided by those pharmacies, especially in rural and regional settings. Some remote pharmacies will receive more than $90,000 a year in funding from 1 July, and the recent seven per cent increase in the indexation of PBS medications will give pharmacies an average of more than $40,000 a year more in annual funding from our government.

With that federal support should come a commitment to responsible dispensing. The Seventh Community Pharmacy Agreement stipulates the need for transparency, appropriateness and cost effectiveness in provision of pharmacy services supported by taxpayer funds, yet taxpayers are currently paying exorbitant prices for vapes flogged to pharmacies for a fraction of those costs by big tobacco. There are also concerns regarding the conflict inherent in pharmaceutical suppliers owning shares in vaping companies. Our government must continually review federally subsidised prescribing and dispensing to ensure that it always accords with the National Strategy for Quality Use of Medicines.

Our health dollar is finite and precious. All Australians deserve reliable, equitable and affordable access to safe medicines. As an Independent member of this parliament, I will hold this government to that standard.

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Boothby. The Albanese Labor government is working hard to deliver the positive change that the nation and the people of Pearce in Western Australia voted for. After the wasted decade under the coalition, we are building a strong foundation for a better future for all Australians by strengthening Medicare. I know families are facing cost-of-living pressures, especially in my electorate, as they have had to think twice before visiting a GP for a regular check-up or refilling regular PBS scripts. For example, an elderly resident of Banksia Grove contacted my office very distressed as she had to change doctors and struggled to find one close by who bulk billed. A Eglinton resident also wrote to me expressing his concern that more than one-third of patients in Pearce can no longer access a bulk billed GP appointment. Many in the Pearce electorate have had to rely on the Dial-A-Doctor after-hours mobile service, which bulk bills, but, as it serves the whole community of Perth, the wait times are often very long.

My electorate is one of the fastest-growing and largest in Australia, growing by 8,000 new residents each year, so access to good medical services is of critical importance. We have a young generation. We have seniors in our community. We have families and singles. So, it's important that Medicare is working as effectively as it could be. I know of one young mother in Yanchep that stayed overnight at a friend's house in Eglinton simply so she could access services for her baby. These, unfortunately, are very clear examples of why the Albanese government is tripling the bulk-billing incentive for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

This historic investment will help over five million children and their families to see a bulk billed GP. It will also support more than seven million pensioners and concession cardholders. Together, these groups account for three out of every five visits to a GP. This has been welcomed by the health sector and GPs across Australia and is an absolute win for our most vulnerable citizens. We have also increased rebates more in a single year than the former government did in seven years. In addition to increasing the investment in bulk billing we are investing in a $1.5 billion indexation boost to every single Medicare rebate. This increases the amount that GPs receive for Medicare services, reducing the pressure to charge people more to get the health care that they need.

As for our GPs, they deserve more than our thanks after working tirelessly through the pandemic and continuing on with their good work. That is why we are also investing a further $2.2 billion into reforms that will strengthen Medicare into the future, including payments for GPs to grow their teams, new rebates for long consultations, easier access to telehealth and so much more.

We went into the election last year with a commitment to making medicines cheaper by dropping the maximum PBS copayment to $30. In government, we were given a mandate by the people to deliver on that promise, and we delivered on that promise. Australians have saved $118 million on more than 11 million cheaper prescriptions. This includes 646,963 in the electorate of Pearce. We are also creating urgent care clinics across the country. The urgent care clinic located in my electorate of Pearce will provide convenient bulk-billed medical care that is closer to home for families in our fast-growing outer metropolitan suburbs. I know that many families who have had to wait long hours to receive medical treatment for non-life-threatening issues now will be able to head to an urgent care clinic near them. I welcome the opening of the Medicare urgent care clinic expected to open from 7 August at the Ocean Keys Family Practice in Clarkson, and I applaud Dr Tim Koh and his team of dedicated staff.

Labor built Medicare, and we will always protect it while making it stronger so it continues to work for the people of our great nation. In just over a year, the Albanese government has achieved so much. We have come a long way, but there's still a lot more work to do.

It's interesting to come into this chamber and hear members opposite talk about health care, because, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Those members opposite have for such a long time complained about how, allegedly, we were going to scrap Medicare. We all remember the 'Mediscare' campaign in the 2016 election campaign. Of course, that was all proven to be absolute rubbish, but it doesn't stop them from continuing with their fabrications.

It's really interesting to hear those opposite talk about Medicare and pharmaceuticals because, as I said before, the proof is in the pudding. I want to use a very salient and topical example, and that's the town of Montville. Those opposite are patting themselves on the back and saying how wonderful they are in government for making changes to health care. Well, I can tell you now that there are not too many people in the township of Montville in my electorate who share government members' view about how wonderful a job they are doing. Why? At the beginning of this year, in January, Montville lost its doctor. Ochre Health said that it was no longer economically viable for them to continue to operate in Montville, so, regrettably, they pulled out. They closed down their surgery, and they were the only GP in Montville.

What followed from that? After the Labor Party announced their changes to Medicare and their increase in funding to Medicare, I got on the phone to one of the directors of Ochre Health and said: 'Will this make a difference? Is this enough for you to stay in town? Can you bring a doctor back?' 'No, it won't make any difference,' he said. It'll make no difference to Ochre's business model. They're not coming back. So that was very unfortunate. The people of Montville now no longer have a doctor. What flowed from the fact that Montville no longer has a doctor? People go to see a doctor in Maleny or Nambour.

What that means is that, particularly as a result of the increase in the cost of living and the cost of doing business—which some of those opposite may have heard me talking about in question time today—Montville has just lost its pharmacist. Its pharmacy closed yesterday. Why? Because there's no doctor in town anymore. Natalie Lindner, who was the pharmacist in Montville, specifically said that the change by the Labor government to the 60-day dispensing rule has meant that her business will no longer be viable. Losing the doctor, losing the pharmacy and now having the newsagent talking about closing—these things have a knock-on effect in a small country town.

Those members opposite in the Labor government did no economic modelling whatsoever. They talked to some of the very large pharmacies, but they didn't talk to community pharmacists about the impact that this was going to have. We warned them. The Pharmacy Guild warned them that there would be closures of pharmacies in small towns. Either they didn't listen or they did not care—one of the two—but they were warned that small pharmacies, mum-and-dad community pharmacies, would close. And guess what: the first one closed yesterday, and it happens to be in my electorate, in Montville.

I can tell you now that the people in Montville—the same 775 people who signed a petition that I tabled in the last sitting week—are not congratulating the Labor government on their reforms, on the so-called wonderful work that they are doing in health in this country.

Member for Fisher, if only the 775 members of Montville had been represented by someone in a federal government for 10 years! Maybe if they had been represented by someone in a federal government for 10 years which didn't want to attack Medicare every time the word was mentioned, which didn't want to freeze Medicare bulk-billing incentives, which actually listened to the advice about 60-day dispensing and introduced it in the targeted, staged way that this government is introducing it, with allowances for pharmacists in country towns like Montville which mean that in the first year dispensing revenue that might be lost from 60-day dispensing will be offset and then over four years would step down, maybe Montville would still have a GP and still have a pharmacist!

And a newsagent.

And a newsagent, yes. Thank you, Member for Boothby. Instead of coming into this place and somehow or other pretending that a government that in its first 12 months has done more to reduce the cost of going to the doctor and the cost of accessing pharmaceuticals than the last 10 years of multiple Liberal-National party governments—maybe, if the member for Fisher actually properly engaged with the needs of his electorate, they wouldn't be in the situation that they are in.

In my community of Dunkley we have a priority primary care centre. We have an urgent care clinic that was started by the state government and is now 100 per cent funded by the federal government, as we promised we would do before the election. There's one in Dandenong. There's one in Frankston, which is my electorate. There's one in Prahran and there's one in Narre Warren. Already since the federal government has taken over funding or established those clinics, they have collectively treated over 20,000 people, according to the South Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network. Every day, I am getting feedback from locals from Dunkley who needed to access a GP after hours and now, instead of having to wait hours and hours at the admittedly excellent Frankston Hospital emergency room, serviced by excellent practitioners, people in Dunkley can go to the priority primary care centre and get help for the sprains, the head knocks and the stomach bugs when they need it, and they can be bulk-billed.

When members of the coalition such as the member for Fisher doubt the commitment of people on this side of the chamber to Medicare and pharmaceuticals, which is how he opened his contribution, I just say: be very careful what you say. We have a caucus over here with people who have served their communities as doctors, as nurses and as nurse practitioners. We have a community of people in this caucus who understand what it's like to have to go and get a script filled every 30 days, who understand that the difference between $30 for a prescription and $42 or $43 for a prescription, when you have to get five or six prescriptions at the same time, is a massive cost-of-living measure, is a massive health measure. We represent communities where people don't take medicine that they need, because they can't afford it. The changes to the cost of medicine introduced in January, the changes to the bulk-billing incentive freeze, the changes which will mean that not only can people pick up their prescriptions every 60 days but they can go to the doctor less and pick up the prescription for half the price are good for consumers, and consumers of the health system are by definition people in need.

Pharmacists will survive. Doctors will do better. But do you know who will absolutely be better off? People with not very much money who are vulnerable and in need. They're the ones we're here to protect.

I rise to speak on member for Boothby's motion relating to health care and I'd like acknowledge the incredible work of the former Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, and the former coalition government, who added 2,800 drugs to the PBS, representing an average of 30 per month. I know how hard Minister Hunt worked on doing this in his time in that portfolio. We also saw an increase in Medicare funding from $19 billion to $36 billion a year, and bulk-billing, despite what those opposite say, increased under the previous government from 82½ per cent to 88½ per cent. I am informed we're now seeing bulk billing rates decrease under the watch of the current health minister.

I think those opposite may have forgotten a little bit that this budget of the Department of Health and Aged Care seems to be a bit of a cost-saving measure for the Treasurer. I say that because we see Medicare subsidised psychology sessions halved, Medicare urgent-care clinics pushed back—and I know this personally because one was meant to be in my electorate—and the removal of Fiasp from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in a few months. It absolutely keeps, in particular, young people with type 1 diabetes alive. We see 60-day dispensing, which will cut money out of pharmacies in every town and city across our country, and they are absolutely crying out for help. I'm not talking about big pharmacies; I'm talking about little community pharmacies and the threat of closing. I've had really distressed pharmacists come and see me about that. They are one-person shows and they don't know what to do with the measures that are coming into place through this government.

The government talks a big game on health, but the fact is they're not delivering what Australians need right now. Take the Better Access Initiative as a prime example. The minister announced in December 2022 that he would take the government backed psychology sessions from 20 to 10. On the very first day of this year, those sessions were cut. I know many psychologists who did not get a Christmas break as they saw desperate Australians who needed to use the additional sessions to complete their treatment or because they were rewriting their treatment plans. So many families were blindsided by the Labor health minister's decision. I had crying families come to me with their stories about using up the allocated sessions a few months into the year, and with the cost-of-living crisis they are struggling to provide for their children's mental health needs. I have young people as young as 16 saying that they're now making the decision of whether to put food on the table or to have their psychology sessions, because they don't have the support of their families. This is just not fair.

Fiasp is a fast-acting insulin which 15,000 Australians rely on daily. It is amazing because it's rapid relief for those with diabetes. This is transforming lives and making sure that young people who may have had to sit on the sideline can actually be like normal kids. It means they can get back to playing sport and to their daily life and not have to think about type 1 diabetes every single minute of the day. But, yet again, as another cost-saving measure, we see Fiasp being cut from the PBS, and it was at short notice. People were really blindsided. Patients were given only a few weeks to renew their scripts; they had to get them done within weeks and have them signed off by April. Now we have until October, when it will cost families so much more for this life-saving insulin. In fact, they're probably not going to be able to access it, unless some serious negotiation is taking place behind the scenes. I seriously hope that the outcome will be positive for the thousands of families who need this insulin.

In terms of the Medicare urgent care clinics, Labor made such a big deal of this in my electorate during the election campaign, and they did it to win votes. We were promised that it would be up and running by now, and it has not been delivered in the time frame possible. Paring back and taking away the politics, this was promised to my community. We want the urgent care clinic so people can start using it. It's causing strain on Nepean Hospital, and there has been uncertainty about the delivery. I think that's another broken promise by this Labor government just to buy votes in a marginal seat during an election campaign, and that is absolutely not right.

There's also the government's 60-day dispensing policy. Sunit operates two TerryWhite pharmacies in my community, and he said that he'll have to charge $20 for the Webster packing, instead of $2. These are real people with small businesses supporting our community, and they are suffering with the uncertainty of the cuts to the 60-day dispensing. This is not a government that cares about the health of Australians.

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety provided a clear blueprint on how to fundamentally change and improve our aged care services, but the majority of the 148 recommendations have still not been implemented; and

(b) the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission is the point of contact for concerns and complaints about aged service provider responsibilities but it appears to be understaffed, have limited powers of investigation and be restricted in the way sanctions can be imposed on providers; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) establish an independent body to oversee the implementation of the essential aged care service reforms in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety; and

(b) expand the powers and resourcing of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to enable it to effectively manage complaints and impose meaningful sanctions.

I'm prompted to move this motion as a direct result of the failure of one of Tasmania's largest aged care providers, Southern Cross Care. I've spoken previously in the parliament about my concerns with this organisation, but since then my fears and the fears of others have escalated.

For instance, Advocacy Tasmania, which is funded to deliver the National Aged Care Advocacy Program in Tasmania, has over the past year supported more than 100 Southern Cross residents and their families in their attempts to resolve a multitude of service and care issues. This is way out of proportion to all other Tasmanian aged care facilities. Indeed, Advocacy Tasmania is so concerned with Southern Cross's failures that it has approached the Minister for Aged Care, asking her to support an investigation into Southern Cross, including a focus on its executive team and board. Advocacy Tasmania has also written to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, suggesting that the CEO and chair of Southern Cross are failing in their obligations under the Code of Conduct for Aged Care and asking for an urgent intervention on behalf of the vulnerable Tasmanians living in Southern Cross facilities.

Advocacy Tasmania has provided numerous examples of complaints against Southern Cross, like: dangerously low staffing levels when, for example, residents at high risk of falls are forced to shower, toilet and dress themselves; poor quality food and food service, with one resident being left without a main meal on at least eight separate occasions in the space of just two months; poor quality care, such as staff failing to notice a resident's significant health deterioration until a family member demanded attention; requiring residents to complete formal consumer information request forms in order to simply access their own information; and, of course, consistently slow and dangerous bell response times. There has even been an utterly bizarre instance where Southern Cross applied to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a guardianship order over a resident. Thankfully, this application was dismissed by the tribunal.

You would think that Southern Cross learnt its lesson when it was singled out by the aged care royal commission, but clearly it didn't. You would also assume that the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission would be on the beat, but, astonishingly, Southern Cross has not consistently been held to account by the commission for poor performance. Effective sanctions have not always been applied, and often there is no follow-up by the commission to ensure agreed measures have been implemented. As a direct result, Southern Cross continues to fail in its obligations and older Tasmanians continue to suffer.

Indeed, I was so concerned about the safety of residents in Southern Cross facilities that I recently met with the aged-care minister to relay my fears and ask her to intervene. In response, the minister is facilitating a meeting for me tomorrow with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, for which I am very grateful. At the meeting, I intend to ask how the commission will deal with the issues facing Southern Cross residents, including individual complaints but also, even more importantly, the broader failures across the entire organisation, because clients, advocates and allied health professionals all attest that the issues at Southern Cross are deeply rooted in the failings of some members of the executive team and board. If such an investigation is outside the scope of the commission or it is not in a position to act immediately, I will be asking the minister to empower it to do so.

I will also be asking the commissioner about what actions will be taken following the release this year of the Report of the Independent Capability Review of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, which showed there are critical capability gaps in the organisation that require attention. The report also provided some recommendations on how the commission's capability can be improved to better support its regulation of the aged-care sector.

I need to make it clear that I hear many positive stories about the hardworking and overworked Southern Cross staff, and my complaints are not about them. No, this is about the conditions in which many Southern Cross residents are living as a direct result of mismanagement and deep systemic failures. As a direct result, it's simply impossible, frankly, for me to reconcile Southern Cross's values of integrity, respect and compassion with the way that many residents and their families are feeling now: powerless, harassed and bullied.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I thank the member for Clark for bringing this private member's motion before the Chamber. I'm pleased to say I have no Southern Cross Care facilities in my electorate of Lyons, and I echo many of the sentiments that the member for Clark has expressed. The executive management of Southern Cross Care really does leave something to be desired, but like him I give my full support to the very hardworking staff of that organisation, who are putting up with all sorts of terrible instances of mismanagement and suppression of wages and conditions under the management of Southern Cross Care. So I thank the member for Clark for bringing this on.

I'll take any opportunity available to speak to the Albanese government's plan to improve aged care for all older Australians and those working within the sector, and it would be remiss of me to speak on this motion without making mention of the brilliant community based aged-care homes across my electorate, from Tandara in Sheffield to Kanangra and Grenoch in Deloraine, Toosey in Longford, Medea Park in St Helens, Corumbene Care in New Norfolk and Uniting AgeWell in Sorell, to name a few. These aged-care homes show what it really means to be a top-class facility. I should also mention, of course, Wellington Views out in Brighton. Not one of the aged-care facilities in Lyons was criticised or targeted for poor performance in the aged-care royal commission. Instead, they represent what aged care is all about and how it should be done. It is testament to the dedication of workers and managers and the committee members who make up the boards.

I must say, for what it's worth, that from my perspective, when I see these voluntary committees and these centres at work around them, I think the non-profit sector is where we really need to be focusing in terms of aged care, but I'll let the minister sort that out. From my perspective, as a local member who deals with aged-care centres all the time, the non-profit sector delivers a better standard of care across the board.

This government is committed to fighting for the welfare and dignity of our older Australians. We firmly believe they deserve better than the broken aged-care system they endured during nine years of shameful neglect under the former Liberal government. It's not often that you get a royal commission report titled Neglect, but that's exactly what happened. It is time for real reform, and our government is addressing the critical issues plaguing the sector. At the 2022 federal election, Labor presented a plan to tackle the crisis. It lays out a clear direction to reform the aged-care sector, informed by the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We embrace the spirit and intent of the commission and view it as the blueprint for our ambitious reforms.

Now, since the election, our government has addressed 69 recommendations. We are doing the work the Liberals neglected to do. In the first sitting week of the new parliament, we introduced two amendment bills to progress reform of the aged-care system for older Australians. It was the first bill passed under our government. That's the importance we attached and continue to attach to the care of older Australians.

Furthermore, in the May 2023 budget we established an Aged Care Taskforce to review funding arrangements and develop options for a fair and equitable system. This task force will continue to consider the royal commission's recommendations, ensuring no stone is left unturned in our pursuit of a better future for older Australians.

As a crucial step towards increased accountability and transparency, our government is actively working to establish an Inspector-General of Aged Care. This independent body will provide oversight, target systemic issues and make recommendations directly to government. The inspector-general bill is currently before the Senate and expected to pass in the second half of 2023. Once appointed, the inspector-general will provide regular reports on the progress on implementing the recommendations of the royal commission, ensuring that we can stay on track for meaningful change.

To enhance the quality of care and complaints management in the aged-care system, we are expanding the powers and resources of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The commissioner has the authority to impose sanctions on providers exhibiting significant non-compliance, and the commission can investigate suspected or reported compliance issues to ensure high standards of care. In the 2023-24 budget, we allocated funding for urgent matters raised in the preliminary report of the capability review, including support for the final report and additional resources for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.

So it's at the top of our agenda, Deputy Speaker Wilkie. We care about aged care. It was a central plank of our election. We are putting the resources into it. We're putting the time into it. Your motion is a very good motion, and I'm pleased to speak on behalf of the government.

I thank the member for Clark for this important motion. The royal commission's recommendations, delivered almost 2½ years ago, remain as important today as they were then. The commission envisaged an aged-care system that supports people to age with dignity in their own homes for as long as possible, and then to transition into a residential facility that offers caring, safe and affordable services if they need to do so.

Even though some years have passed since the commission delivered its report, there is much work to be done in realising this incredibly important vision. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, known as the complaints commission, is mandated to actively listen to complaints against the aged-care system and then take necessary steps to respond to them so that the system can ultimately improve. However, the royal commission found that this complaints body is 'insufficiently responsive to the experiences of older people' and that it 'does not provide enough safeguards to protect older people and provide reassurance to their families that they will receive safe and high quality aged care', especially in home care. Now, this includes both the Commonwealth Home Support Program and the Home Care Packages Program.

People who make a complaint shouldn't find the process so hard to access, and their complaint should not go unanswered—experiences that the royal commission found were happening regularly. On the recommendation of the royal commission, the Minister for Aged Care ordered an independent review of the complaints commission. These findings and recommendations were released only two weeks ago, and I urge the minister to carefully consider and respond to this review as a high priority, as one step towards improving older Australians' experience of the aged-care system.

One recommendation in particular stood out to me, and it was this one: that the commission must acquire a better understanding of the diverse needs and circumstances of aged-care consumers and their communities, including older people living in regional and remote communities. And I know that the constituents who call in to my office to talk about their experiences with the aged-care system would thoroughly agree with this recommendation. There is a real sense that the struggles of regional communities are not heard, let alone understood.

Too frequently my office hears stories of older people and their families who are desperately trying to find home-care providers, but, being in a regional, rural or remote area, there are just not enough of them. Providers say that they can't find the staff to do the work. If the complaints commissioner is to handle complaints effectively, they must understand this limitation that we have in rural and regional Australia.

In Wodonga, the biggest town in my electorate of Indi, there are currently no government subsidised providers available for home maintenance services like minor repairs, window cleaning and weeding. The waitlist to receive these services essential to keep people in their homes is a staggering 2,000 people long—yes, that's right. That's in Wodonga.

In Benalla, the third-biggest town, private providers are at capacity and clients are left for long periods without services and there are last-minute cancellations, changing workers and very little continuity of care. I have heard deeply concerning stories about people waiting well over a month to have their house cleaned. I've met with Age Friendly Benalla, the University of the Third Age and Benalla Rural City Council about this crisis. I've written to the Interim Inspector-General of Aged Care asking that they do something to get this back on track.

Another example is the Strathbogie shire, where there is only one service provider for outreach into homes. Many constituents have written in describing how they completed an application for home care and were approved for a plan, only to hear back that the provider had closed its books. One constituent who has been waiting for help for months wrote to me to say:

The Australian Government state they aim to help older Australians in their home by providing services to achieve this outcome. Unfortunately this is not a reality.

Sadly, this constituent could not be more correct. Home-care services are still in crisis, especially in regional Australia.

The government must show that it grasps the extent of this problem. It must actively listen to rural and regional experiences in consultation on the new Support at Home Program. It must also provide proper powers and resources to the bodies set up to handle aged-care complaints so that the experiences in rural, regional and remote Australia can be addressed and fixed. (Time expired)

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) up to one in six recent migrants to Australia is paid less than the minimum wage;

(b) exploitation does not just affect individual workers but effectively drives down wages and worsens conditions for all Australian workers; and

(c) about 20 per cent of anonymous reports and disputes resolved by the Fair Work Ombudsman, and up to 80 per cent of litigations initiated by the Ombudsman in recent years involved migrants;

(2) acknowledges the Government is delivering on its commitment to improving employer compliance in the workplace by:

(a) introducing new criminal offences, additional enforcement tools, increased pecuniary penalties and a prohibition measure; and

(b) enhancing safeguards and protections for workers through co-designing a range of initiatives; and

(3) commends the Government for introducing stronger protections for temporary migrant workers to ensure a better future for all workers.

I support the Albanese Labor government's remarkable reforms to reducing migrant worker exploitation in Australia. My electorate, like several others across the country, is home to a large number of people born overseas. Many of them moved to Australia during their working lives to live in a country where they believed they could earn a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, be guaranteed work rights essential for a productive economy and be protected from harassment and coercion in the workplace. Most migrants, including me and my family, were in for a rude shock.

I started working at several fast-food and hospitality chains from an early age to supplement the income I used to receive from working in retail. Early on I noticed the stark contrast in the treatment of migrant workers, like me, and the treatment of my Australian-born colleagues. We were offered employment only if we agreed to work for cash in hand. Our super contributions were overlooked and when asked about it the excuses ranged from 'administrative errors' to lies such as, 'Only Australian citizens receive super.' Unpaid overtime became the rule, not the exception. Any protest against this treatment was responded to with threats that we would be reported to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, as it was known at the time, for breaking the law, even though we were forced to do so.

Some of you might ask, if that was the treatment at a workplace, why did you not change jobs? The fact is that, many times when the line was pushed too far, we did. But we realised that this exploitation was systematic. The constant underpayment, rorting and harassment were not limited to a particular employer. Instead, they were endemic and quickly dampened any hope of being treated fairly in the workplace.

Plenty of research conducted since then reflects the experiences migrants often go through. The Grattan Institute noted in one of their reports that one in six recent migrants are paid below the minimum wage, and a report by Unions NSW reached similar conclusions. Temporary visa holders make up four per cent of the workforce, but in 2021-22 they made up 26 per cent of all litigations initiated for breaching the Fair Work Act. For a decade, the previous government put the safety of migrant workers at the bottom by failing to implement the recommendations of the Migrant Workers Taskforce report. All workers in Australia should be safe and feel protected at work, regardless of their visa status, and it hurts all workers when employers engage in a race to the bottom.

The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023 will provide greater penalties to target unethical employers who mistreat and exploit vulnerable migrant workers on temporary visas. By establishing a criminal offence to deter employers from coercing, unduly influencing or pressuring a temporary migrant worker to breach a work related visa condition, the bill will protect employees who are on the weaker end of the power imbalance. In addition, it will be an offence for employers to use a person's immigration status to exploit them in the workplace. Employers who engage in improper practices, such as underpaying or otherwise breaching their obligations in the employment of workers, will also be prohibited from hiring any additional people on temporary visas for a period. The Australian Border Force will be provided with new tools to improve compliance outcomes, modelled on measures available to Fair Work inspectors.

I commend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Giles MP, for introducing these reforms, and I would also like to wish Andrew Giles MP a happy 50th birthday. I am proud the Albanese Labor government is delivering stronger protections to ensure a better future for all workers in this country. I thank the House.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Firstly, I congratulate the member for Holt on her address and for bringing to the parliament her personal experience of what happened to her and her family. One of the good parts about this place is that the parliament attracts a diversity of people, and the member for Holt has obviously risen above the outcomes and did not remain cynical about the approach of Australian employers in this country. She obviously joined the Labor Party. I would have suggested she might have joined the Liberal Party had she been thinking correctly at the time, but she joined the Labor Party, and she's ended up right here in this parliament as the member for Holt in the House of Representatives. Obviously, she made the point that there are people out there who are without the control of government.

I would also offer the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs my great congratulations on his 50th birthday. Mine was 22 years ago, and he sounds very young, but I certainly congratulate Andrew. Andrew has been a friend in this House for a long time. Andrew, I congratulate you on your 50th birthday, which is a very significant birthday in the life of anyone, especially when you are a member of parliament and you have some very difficult issues to face. These issues have been brought to our attention by the member for Holt, and there will be legislation covering these things.

All governments, going back to Labor governments before the coalition government, know that we can't find around 60,000 people in Australia. We don't know where they are. We don't know where they're working. We are able, at different times, to put in a task force and go and find as many people as possible and see who's exploiting the system.

But there must be a proviso here, and I hope that will be in the legislation. That proviso is this: let it not be a witch hunt for employers who break the rules without knowing they're breaking the rules—for those people who legitimately think that they're paying the award rate when there have been changes that weren't brought to their attention, as has happened with some of the biggest organisations in Australia, who all believed they were paying their employees correctly, and they weren't.

The member for Holt was talking about something totally different to that misunderstanding of the award or whatever the big banks and other people claim. You're talking about direct exploitation of workers for the benefit of that organisation, especially migrant workers who come here. Why do they come? Why do we give many of them a visa to come directly to Australia? That is because they are in another country of their own and they are in difficult circumstances like we would not understand in this country. Families come to this country with hope, a view to gain some control of their lives and, most importantly, the desire to belong. They come to this nation to belong.

To be exploited when you first come here with all your hopes and dreams put before you—your first job as a migrant, and you are seen to be a second-class citizen straight off. What you thought you were coming to isn't your experience immediately. You then need to have leaders in your community to go to, a union to go to, a mentor to go to—someone to tell, 'This is happening to me.' But too often they haven't got the contacts and those sorts of abilities to say this, and they are too frightened of their experience. They have a job. 'If I go to another one, does the same thing happened to me? Is it any different with the next employer?' That question would have to be asked.

So I thank the member for Holt for bringing this to the attention of the parliament. I look forward to the introduction of that legislation into the parliament, and I actually hope it achieves all that it sets out to achieve. But I remind everybody: let there be clear winners in this place and not innocent bystanders knocked over by the legislation.

I take great pride in being in this chamber today supporting the member for Holt by speaking in support of the motion that she has moved here today and standing in support of Australia's migrant workforce and all migrant workers in our country. It should not come as a surprise to see members from this side of the chamber stand up in support of workers, especially those workers who have migrated to Australia on a temporary basis. Whether their purpose for coming to Australia was to work, whether they are working in addition to studying in Australia or whether they have been engaged by an unscrupulous employer to work outside the conditions of their visa, if they're working in Australia, they deserve the ability to do so free from exploitation and free from the possibility of exploitation. That exploitation may be in the form of underpayment of wages, conditions, the minimum legal standard or a rate they are entitled to, all the way through to making migrant workers work beyond the conditions of their visa or even withholding a migrant worker's passport. Sadly the list is significantly longer than these examples.

Further to this, it should come as no surprise that it is a Labor government that comes to this parliament to stand up for the rights of working people to make it harder for employers to get away with exploiting our migrant workforce and harder to exploit all workers. Every one of us, after hearing that up to one in six migrants to Australia is paid less than the minimum wage, should find that statistic shocking to the core. We don't want to think that it's true, but we all know it is. We can't ignore our obligations and our duties as parliamentarians to stop this from happening. I know I won't, I know the member for Holt won't, I know the member for Tangney won't, I know the member for Solomon won't and I especially know the Albanese Labor government won't.

Those of us from the union movement can point to a number of examples that would count as horror stories of migrant worker exploitation in its own right, but the catalyst for action was the systemic breaches that were uncovered in 7-Eleven's stores. Luckily for those who had worked or were working at 7-Eleven at the time—and, for that matter, migrant workers across Australia who were experiencing systematic breaches of their workplace rights or entitlements—regardless of whether they knew this at the time or not, these reports were so flagrant and so well-documented by the media that it shocked the conscience to such an extent that the Turnbull government was forced to act. The Migrant Workers Taskforce was created to provide a report to the government at the time on an issue that, at least, our side of politics was not naively unaware of. At the end of the day, providing recommendations as part of the report to government might just have been what the doctor ordered. However, the previous government would do what they did best.

As we all know, the report was first commissioned back when Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister. The task force finally delivered its report to the government well after the member for Cook had ambitions for Malcolm's job and subsequently became Prime Minister himself. The Morrison government received that report in February 2019, with the government's response provided in early March 2019. An election was held not long after that. Then, nearly one whole parliament later, the Morrison government introduced the Migration Amendment (Protecting Migrant Workers) Bill 2021. They did so at the end of November 2021, knowing they were only going to have a handful of sitting days in the next year before they called an election.

Like with many other things in the life of that government, they achieved what they wanted to achieve: being able to say that they did something while they ran down the clock. It may have taken two changes of prime minister since the task force's inception, but, most importantly, it took a change of government. Now we finally have a government, the Albanese Labor government, that is introducing legislation into this place to protect our migrant workforce from exploitative practices from employers or prospective employers. Whether you want to say that the previous government's lack of real action to legislate on this matter was by circumstance or design, it is frankly no coincidence that it is Labor standing up for all working people, regardless of their origin. If they work on our shores, they are deserving of our protection in the workplace.

I thank the member for Holt for the motion. All workers deserve to be treated fairly, and that's a principle that I certainly believe in. I think the tone of this motion is that temporary migrant workers are routinely exploited. I want to emphasise that I don't think this is the case in my electorate, and I want to give some examples. Overseas labour is fundamental to our productivity, and my region has a significant agricultural and horticultural sector. A lot of the migrants who came after the war, particularly after World War II, stayed on, developed wonderful businesses and now have incredible lives and incredible families. I think that's something we should all celebrate.

The manufacturing businesses, vehicle workshops, dry-cleaning, hospitality, farms and food manufacturers are incredibly reliant on migrant workers. Overseas workers are not—as used to be said—taking jobs from Australian workers; increasingly, they are our workers. Migrants held 26.3 per cent of all jobs in Australia in 2019 and 2020. There have been some issues with migrant workers in the nation. The Australian Border Force's register of sanctioned sponsors has identified businesses or individuals who have breached their sponsorship obligations. In Victoria, going back to 2015, there are more than 300 on the list. There are just two agricultural businesses in Victoria that appear on that register, and both happen to be in my electorate.

I know there is a need for constant vigilance and constant enforcement of the laws that exist, and we'll certainly look at new legislation that can increase that. But it can't be all stick and no carrot. I think mistakes can be made if the system is too complex. Running a business is hard work. It's very difficult, so mistakes can be made. Then, there can be malfeasance. That needs to be punished, and I fully support that. I think about what Labor's proposing to do with PALM, the Pacific Labour Mobility Scheme. They've changed the PALM scheme to guarantee a minimum of 30 hours of pay per week. It sounds good to people who have never run a business, or a horticultural business, but, in my electorate, horticultural business is paying tens of thousands of dollars to top up workers' wages, regardless of the amount of productivity in that week. The fruit might not be ready to harvest, but they'll get the hours the week after. That doesn't work for the farming systems.

I want to share this story. I recently went to the funeral of an elderly fruit grower whose family has been growing fruit in my region for a number of years. He was an older guy; he was in his early 80s. It was very sad that we lost him. The most inspiring thing at the funeral was when the Pacific Islander workers, who had been back and forth between that farm and their home in the Pacific Islands for so many years, got up and sang their Pacific Island songs from their culture to honour this man who'd worked so well with them and given them such dignity through his business. They helped his business, and his business helped them to send money home to their families. The respect for this elderly fruit grower that was had by those Pacific workers—that's the way it should work, and that's the way we want it to work. I can assure the member for Holt that, overwhelmingly, in my electorate that's the way it does work. If there are ways in which we can make it work like that for everyone, then I'm all ears and I'm sure this side will be very supportive of that. But it has got to make sure that productivity of business and profitability of business are at the forefront. Without that, none of us have a job, whether you're a migrant worker or an Australian worker. That's why the previous coalition government introduced the ag visa—we thought it would be a good way to get more migrant workers here, also on a path to permanency. We'll look at your legislation about migrant workers, but please relook at the ag visa. I think it was a way of getting—

An honourable member: You guys didn't do anything—

a real win-win situation for not only businesses in the region but also migrant workers.

Modern Australia has been built by immigration on the land that our First Nations have cared for through countless generations. Except for them, we are all immigrants. One-third of workers in Australia are immigrants, one-fifth are not citizens, and seven per cent are temporary migrants. In most cases, they are highly skilled. Half of them are likely to already have a bachelor degree or postgrad. But being highly skilled seems to not be enough in Australia. It was the Albanese Labor government that raised the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold. Before that, it had not been updated in 10 years. Employers could get away with offering skilled migrants below market wages. Until this government made the decision to fix the complicated visa system, many qualified migrants were left with no option but to take unskilled jobs with much lower pay.

When you are granted a visa to come to Australia, you receive a notification from the Department of Home Affairs with a section that reads, 'All people working in Australia, including those from overseas, have rights and protections at work.' This is a part of our cultural DNA. It is a basic principle of giving everybody a fair go. It is recognising that we are a multicultural society, a country where many talented people of diverse origins can come to have a fulfilling career. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. According to statistics from the ABS and Fair Work, newly arrived migrant workers are more likely to be underpaid. As many as 16 per cent of migrant workers were paid below the minimum wage. That is 82,000 workers. Underpayment is just the first form of exploitation. Other forms include under-the-table cash payments, which contribute to employment insecurity. Underpaid super contributions, underpaid penalty rates, underpaid leave and unreasonable deductions for accommodation are also common practices.

So many workers are treated as if they do not belong. They are threatened with being reported to the authorities, even if they are lawful migrants. It is so much worse when this lack of empathy comes from the people elected to take care of everyone. In 2020, at the start of the pandemic, the then Prime Minister told migrants, 'It's time to go home.' I want to tell Mr Morrison: for many of them, many of us, Australia is home.

The disadvantages that many migrant workers face are not just a handicap for them; they have consequences for our economy. Employers that underpay workers gain an unfair advantage. Their competitors suffer from the pressure of having to reduce costs to survive. In a market where workers are underpaid, both Australian-born and immigrant workers lose bargaining power. This harms businesses that do the right thing; it harms workers regardless of where they are from; and it damages our reputation. Why would any skilled professional want to come to Australia if their rights won't be protected?

Our commitment is to protect the rights of workers, no matter where they come from. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Act 2023, passed in June, guarantees that workers will continue to have the same rights and entitlements under workplace law regardless of their migration status. But it is necessary to take this a step further and implement the recommendation made by the Report of the Migrant Workers Taskforce. Introducing new criminal offences and increasing the maximum criminal and civil penalties for work related offences in the Migration Act will deter those employers seeking to exploit vulnerable workers. Breaching a work related visa condition should not be considered a criminal offence, and worker exploitation should be considered in decisions regarding visa cancellations. (Time expired)

Firstly, I obviously commend the sentiment in this motion regarding ensuring that workers aren't exploited in this country—any workers, particularly, as this motion touches on, migrant workers. I certainly believe that we have a relatively robust framework in this country to make sure that, where wrongdoing occurs, the avenues are there for taking that up and potentially initiating prosecution. We have the Fair Work Commission. I accept that a lot of migrants who might be in that circumstance could do with some more support and understanding of what their rights are and how they can access remedies for mistreatment.

But I also want to take the opportunity to put on the record that I hope the great employers of this nation, particularly small businesses, don't take this motion as an indication that parliament thinks that anyone who employs someone has a natural inclination to exploit them, because that's complete rubbish. In fact, I have never come across a business in my electorate that doesn't value its employees as its most important asset. Businesses invest in their employees. Very often they pay them more than they need to. They certainly access the skilled migration system and find it of great value, and they do that after they have exhausted the avenue of employing Australians. They work through the very difficult skilled migration system, and I agree with the intention of dramatically simplifying that. I hope that is genuinely the government's intention.

The problem has been the unions. For years and years, they have stood in the way of that. The unions have always thought that a migrant is here to steal an Australian's job. That's been the policy position of the unions, who have fought against any attempt to simplify the system. We know that, when we were in government just recently, the unions visited South-East Asian embassies, telling them not to sign up to our visa program. They said not to do it, because in the view of the unions this was some type of attempt for us to help migrants come in and fill jobs in regional communities that apparently should be kept for Australians. These people just don't exist to fill the roles. We wish that they did. 'I'd much rather go through all the trouble of sponsoring someone to come in through the skilled migration program rather than employ an Australian,' said no business ever! There is no way you wouldn't much prefer to employ an Australian. But obviously we value the migration program and the opportunity to bring skilled workers into our economy, because we all recognise the benefit of that and we want our economy to be growing. We don't want to constrict our economy by not having the appropriate workforce.

The government have two positions here, or their union masters have one and they've got another. This one says that migrants need more support and protection, but we've got a union movement trying to constrict migration into the country. That's why we know that the ag visa is a nonstarter with the Labor Party. It's nothing to do with what the view of the government might be; it's just the rules of union control over that political party. These are the things you can and can't do, and the unions make and dictate those policies. So we're all for sensible, skilled migration into this country and we're all for addressing skills shortages, particularly in regional areas. We demonstrated that in government. Businesses don't want to exploit workers. That's not the default position of employers whatsoever.

This motion talks about people being paid less than the minimum wage. That's unacceptable. I know a lot of people earning less than the minimum wage. You know who they are? They are small-business owners. They are people who, when you look at the amount of hours they put into their business—their cafe, newsagency or whatever—and you divide that by what they are earning, they are being paid way below the minimum wage. Some of the lowest-paid workers in our economy are small-business owners, people who own their own business. They get paid last if they get paid at all, and in tough times they don't get paid at all. They can lose money and lose their business.

In speaking to this motion, I don't want it to seem in any way that there's some default position that employers are evil and always seeking to exploit their workforce like we're in a Charles Dickens novel. That's not the case at all. I stand up for employers and say, 'Thank you for what you do: for running businesses, for employing Australians, for paying the taxes that allow us to have the society that we so richly appreciate.'

The time allotted for this debate has expired and the debate is interrupted. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme, which was established by the Coalition, has been embraced by industry and Pacific Island communities alike as a program that has efficiently reduced labour shortages, increased financial opportunities for workers and strengthened ties between Pacific countries and Australia; and

(b) the Government's union-backed reforms to the PALM scheme are a huge threat to farmers, consumers, Pacific workers and our foreign relations;

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) farmers are now threatening to boycott the program which will force those from nine Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste to be paid a minimum of 30 hours a week, every week under Labor's plans; and

(b) the changes to the scheme were made without adequate consultation with stakeholders and the adverse reaction shows the Government needs to go back to the drawing board; and

(3) recognises that Labor's changes are being rammed through without warranted consideration and attention and have the potential to cause major disruptions to the scheme which would see an increase of labour shortages, a breakdown in Pacific relations and increased costs being passed onto the consumer at the grocery store.

I've moved this motion because it is an important one. It is absolutely imperative that the House notes that the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, which was established by the Coalition, has been embraced by industry, particularly horticulture and Pacific Islander communities alike, because it is a program which has effectively reduced labour shortages, which are critical right throughout country Australia. It has increased financial opportunities for workers and it has strengthened ties, so very important, between Pacific countries and our nation.

The government's union backed reforms to the PALM scheme are a massive threat to farmers, to consumers, to Pacific workers and, indeed, to foreign relations. It is that serious. I would also like to acknowledge that farmers, particularly horticulturalists—those wonderful growers—are now threatening to boycott the program, which under Labor's plans would force those from nine Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste to be paid for a minimum of 30 hours a week every week. On the surface, that might seem great. That might seem necessary. But, as members know, farm work doesn't always happen when you want it to. There's the weather. There are such things as seasonal conditions. There are any number of impediments to farming and any number of impediments to enabling workers to be paid that minimum of 30 hours a week every week.

The changes to the scheme have been made without what you would think would be adequate consultation—more is the pity—and stakeholders are scratching their heads and wondering why. They're wondering why Labor has not reached out and asked them for their views. It is absolutely necessary for the government to go back to the drawing board on this, rather than just ramming this through the parliament. These changes have been made without the warranted consideration and attention, and they have the potential to cause major disruptions to the scheme. And that is going to see labour shortages. It is going to see higher grocery prices. It is going to see relations between Pacific countries and Australia affected.

Now, the PALM scheme is a staple of Australia's agricultural industry and its foreign affairs and diplomacy, but Labor's changes—that's 'Labor', as in the government—are causing a major exodus. The PALM scheme allows approved employers to hire workers from Pacific countries to fill roles in unskilled, low-skilled and semiskilled positions in rural and regional Australia—jobs that would just not be done. There'd be fruit which would just not be getting picked. And it's so vitally important, nationally, for our agricultural sector.

As of May this year, there were about 40,000 PALM scheme workers in Australia. They are a vital part not just of the farming sector but of those country communities. And the remittances they send home are vital for their own countries' gross domestic product. According to World Bank figures, 44 per cent of Tonga's GDP is made up of remittances sent home by those working abroad; in Samoa, it's 30 per cent; in Vanuatu, 21 per cent; in Fiji, nine per cent. They're a vital component of the GDP of those countries, those island nations.

The program has been subjected to multiple changes. Many, when we were in government, were good. They were done with proper and due consultation. But the union puppetmasters are pulling the same old tricks that you always see, that you come to know and come to expect, when Labor is in power. And it's happening again. There's a cacophony of red tape, created by the Canberra bubble, aided and abetted by the union puppetmasters, as I say. It's making the program unworkable for the 424 approved employers, and it jeopardises our Pacific diplomacy—and Pacific diplomacy at the moment is so important. Never before have we seen the challenges in this space that we are seeing now, and we all need to be on the same page when it comes to making sure that our Pacific friends are being looked after. Now, the unions will say, 'The workers need consistency and more balance;' I get that. But many of the workers prefer to come to Australia; they want to return home with more cash, but they want their jobs going forward. And these changes that Labor are making are not going to make that happen and they're going to make the scheme more unworkable, and it's just not going to be what it was in the past.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Those opposite will take any opportunity to take a swipe at this government, but this time their swipe is particularly baseless. It's a swing and a miss. Building stronger rights and better working conditions for workers is fundamentally against their core values. It absolutely kills them to see a government looking out for workers. And, Deputy Speaker, I love it.

First, those opposite have tried to take credit for a scheme which was actually introduced by Labor. The Rudd government initiated the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme in 2008, aiming to involve Pacific seasonal workers in Australia's agricultural sector and strengthen Australia's ties with the region. This pilot program lasted for four seasons. In 2012, the Gillard government expanded this initiative and transformed it into a significant permanent program, known as the Seasonal Worker Program or SWP. The SWP maintained its original focus on short-term seasonal work. In 2018, the coalition government introduced a longer-term program called the Pacific Labour Scheme, which allowed Pacific workers to come to Australia for up to four years and to work in various industries located in regional and rural areas. In 2021 the coalition government decided to consolidate the Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme under a unified program called the PALM scheme, so claiming that the coalition can solely take credit for establishing the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme is completely untrue.

They try to slam our changes to the scheme and make out that we're leaving it in a shambles when what we're doing is making it stronger. We are committed to increasing protections and getting rid of exploitation of migrants. The reality right now is that workers under this scheme are vulnerable. They are stuck with an employer, are unable to leave at their choice and are without work, sometimes for weeks, entirely at the say of their employer. These workers leave their home, their families and their communities to the benefit of employers in Australia. They deserve better support, and this government is giving that to them.

These changes are driven by our Pacific and Timor-Leste partners, who have highlighted that low work hours is a major factor in discouraging workers. If these workers are going to give up everything to come to Australia, they need to earn enough money each week to support themselves and support their families and communities back at home. But right now the conditions of the PALM scheme visa prevent workers from being able to get other work if their employer is unable to give them enough work hours. This isn't fair on the workers and it's not achieving what the PALM scheme set out to achieve.

These changes are good for employers too. They mean that the workers are less likely to be disengaged and help create a workforce that is reliable. They also mean that workers are likely to come back again, which helps create higher productivity. These changes are a win all round.

Those opposite claim that these changes could cause disruption to the scheme and result in labour shortages. We know that these changes are big for employers, but the changes will be implemented gradually and carefully to ensure that the program continues to deliver wins for both workers and employers. This will make sure that there is time for employers and participating countries to adjust.

The PALM scheme is vital, but it is not the only thing that is important in meeting the workforce needs in the agriculture sector. We are taking action in multiple ways, like supporting growers to hire Australian workers through a range of programs, including the Workforce Australia services and Harvest Trail services. There are also other categories of temporary visa holders that can help fill some of the labour shortages to ensure harvest work continues, such as working holiday makers. This scheme has proven highly successful and, as at 31 May, there have been more than 137,000 working holidaymakers in Australia. Some 12,400 of them were granted further visas due to their work in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors.

Our agricultural sector is important. It's so important to make sure that it has good access to the labour that it needs to operate at the high level that it does. The PALM scheme is pivotal in making this happen, but we in the Labor Party want to make sure workers are treated right, whether they're foreigners or Australians. That is what these changes are all about. They are good for workers and good for employers.

I have great pleasure in joining the debate on the motion moved by the member for Riverina. It's an important motion. Members on this side of the House, particularly the regional members, fully understand the workforce issues facing many in our community, particularly in the agriculture sector and the horticulture sector, in regions like Gippsland.

I acknowledge the remarks of the member for Hunter, the previous speaker, in relation to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme being first announced by the coalition as a merger of the previous Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme. That took effect I think in 2022. It enables eligible employers to hire workers from participating countries to fill roles in unskilled, low-skilled and semiskilled positions in rural and regional Australia and nationally in the agriculture sector.

The countries that participate in the PALM scheme are very appreciative and supportive of the program, particularly in the context of where it is delivering remittances to communities where average household incomes are much lower than we experience here in Australia. I had the chance on a visit to Timor-Leste to get a better understanding of the benefit of remittances back home from workers who are working in my electorate of Gippsland and sending money back to their community. So it's an important scheme. It's one that has great support across the Pacific and Timor-Leste itself. The Pacific workers and the Timor-Leste workers help to fill gaps in the regional and rural workforce, and it offers our employers access to reliable and productive workers who contribute not only to the economic life but to the social and cultural life of the communities in which they are hosted.

It's important to acknowledge that, as of May this year—so as of only a couple of months ago—there were about 40,000 PALM scheme workers in Australia, and the changes this government has introduced as part of the budget process, which the member for Hunter just spoke about, have been criticised not just by those on the side of the House but also by the industry itself. I encourage those opposite not to automatically assume that, if someone is being critical of one of your policy positions, it's got a political agenda; it may simply be that you've made a bad decision on poor advice from the bureaucrats.

I say that because a month ago I was reading through an opinion piece by the chair of the horticultural peak body, AUSVEG, Bill Bulmer. Bill Bulmer is someone I know very well. He lives in my electorate. He's a major investor in the Mitchell River flats and horticultural sector. Now, Bill is not someone who is prone to exaggeration. Bill Bulmer is not someone who is going to try to scare the horses for the sake of scoring a political point. Bill Bulmer is a bloke who's invested enormous amounts of money, has employed people on the Mitchell River flats now for decades and is very invested in providing a world-class food resource to Australian shoppers at an affordable price. When Bill writes his opinion piece, I would urge those opposite to pay attention.

What Bill Bulmer had to say was: 'The future of PALM is under threat following a rushed and inadequate consultation on proposed changes that will make the scheme less attractive for growers. It will be a lose-lose-lose situation for workers, growers and consumers.' Bill goes on to say, 'The horticultural industry has led the charge with PALM as its major employer and advocate, but this will be undermined if it is no longer fit for purpose.' Again, this is not a politician criticising a Labor policy or criticising Canberra bureaucrats inside their bubble; this is someone who works with the scheme, who does everything he possibly can to provide a world-class product grown on the Lindenow flats, off the Mitchell River irrigation district. This is a guy who would prefer to employ Australian workers because it's easier, and he's saying the PALM scheme, under the changes being made by this government, is in jeopardy.

He goes on to say: 'Industry has warned government that implementing a fixed-hours requirement will decrease demand for Pacific workers, which negates the intent of the program to assist our Pacific partners. Averaging 30 hours a week over eight weeks is a sensible solution. The change takes into account any adverse weather events and unforeseen challenges with growing fresh produce and will give the industry confidence to hire more PALM workers while ensuring staff are well paid.' Again, it's a practical solution from a practical man, someone who's just trying to grow a crop, return a profit and deliver world-class, quality food to the Australian market. Mr Bulmer goes on to say that, under the changes that the Labor Party is making, he will employ fewer local international workers, we will not provide as much support to our Pacific neighbours and Australians who are already suffering through a cost-of-living crisis will be forced to pay more for fresh produce.

I appeal to those opposite: listen to the advice from people who are working with the scheme on the ground. Don't be so stubborn. Understand that the font of all wisdom does not exist here in Canberra. Listen to the industry and make the changes that will make it work on the ground in regional Australia.

The motion by the member for Riverina is well meaning but contains inaccuracies, and the member has really stuck his neck out by incorporating the words 'a breakdown in Pacific relations'. Pacific relations are at their highest point in 10 years due to the work done by this government to repair them. In the first 12 months of this government, ministers have visited every Pacific Islands Forum member. Across any portfolio, be it defence, aid, migration or climate action, Pacific relations have been improving for just over a year now. Contrary to the words of the previous member and the member for Riverina, over two-thirds of active PALM approved employers have already signed new deeds, with more new deeds arriving daily, and forecast demand for workers in July 2023 is above the 12-month average. The PALM scheme is not at risk.

It is not perfect, however, and so the Albanese government is moving to address worker exploitation and ensure that any employers or labour-hire companies who are consistently doing the wrong thing are taken out of the picture. We have all heard stories about overseas workers on temporary visas being made to live in awful conditions, being underpaid or otherwise being treated badly by a minority of undeserving employers or middlemen. It would be odd if the member for Riverina had not heard these stories.

In February last year, in a hearing into Pacific worker exploitation by the Select Committee on Job Security, coalition senator Canavan suggested that, in his view, the workers were being treated like indentured labourers. He suggested that affording Pacific workers more rights and portability would help push wages up, and that would be a good thing as it would protect wage levels for Australian workers too. I commend Senator Canavan for those comments.

The National Party had Scott Morrison on the ropes a couple of years ago and beat the short-lived agriculture visa out of him—a visa with even fewer protections for overseas workers. For some reason, a lot of our neighbouring countries were suspicious of it and refused to sign up. They thought it might lead to exploitation. We've dumped it, of course. It would be nice if the National Party's policies involved something for the average worker, rather than appearing to be designed to make exploitation easier for the few bad apples amongst the landed gentry.

The government's investments in the PALM scheme announced in the May budget include more skills, development and community liaison offices for Pacific workers and strengthened worker protections and compliance operations. It's a partnership designed to benefit partner countries and to treat individual workers with respect. The protections and safeguards announced by ministers Burke and Conroy on 5 June include minimum-hour requirements, pay parity with domestic workers and transparency around accommodation costs. They are designed to address the deficiencies in the sector. The purpose of the change is not to make life more difficult for employers. It is about making sure that the arrangements are fair and supportive for the workers, who have come a long way and dislocated their lives in order to provide for their families and communities at home. It is also to ensure that those farms and those businesses are viable and there's food on the table for all of us.

The government is making the work more attractive, assisting families to come to Australia and making access to superannuation and Medicare easier. Above all, we are ensuring that an Australian migrant worker scheme embodies Australian values. The government recognises that there will be extreme circumstances outside of an employer's control that may, from time to time, make it difficult for them to continue to offer 30 hours per week. But the PALM scheme approved employer guidelines allow the department to consider exceptional circumstances that could prevent employers in impacted regions from meeting the minimum-hours requirement. Importantly, the new guidelines allow for employers to work with other employers to develop short-term portability arrangements to provide those workers with the minimum hours and thus meet workforce needs.

Labor is growing the PALM program, with worker numbers up by more than 70 per cent since we came to office. But, as I say, the PALM program has to work for all parties. As Minister Burke quite rightly stated in June, exploitation is always unacceptable. We've also created a pathway to permanent settlement for Pacific island workers through the aptly named Pacific engagement visa. If the member is so concerned about Pacific island relations, where are he and the coalition on that? Pacific island relations are about more than just knowing how to carefully sip your sakau. They require hard work, respect and the understanding that is it a partnership. Employers I've spoken to want to work together with PALM workers and the government to ensure that workers are treated fairly, accommodated well and have a good experience.

What is it about Labor and immigration? Every time they touch it, it's a complete and utter disaster. Just look at the debate going on at the moment. We have a housing crisis, a rental crisis, congestion issues and environmental issues, and they're bringing 1.5 million people in. Where are they going to be housed? What is it doing to rents? Every time Labor touches immigration, it is a complete and utter mess.

Look at this now with their changes to the PALM scheme. They won't consult. They don't go and ask, 'If you're employing people from the Pacific islands, what can we do to make sure that a few bad apples can't exploit workers?' Properly consult. Properly engage. Do the right thing. Instead, what do they do? They say, 'We'll put bureaucratic regulations in place, and we'll give the bureaucrats the option that, if they think there are exceptional circumstances, we might allow an employer to change some of the rules, like if there's been a flood, or if, say, insects damage or destroy a crop. Then the bureaucrats here in Canberra might be able to make a change.'

Why won't Labor consult properly? Why won't they look at schemes like this, which are working well, and then say, 'Okay, if we need to make some small changes because we're worried about this or that, then we will consult properly to come up with a way to deal with those bad apples.' Instead, they just want to make it harder for everyone, and, at the same time, what they do is they make it harder for Australian businesses, who are paying taxes, which, of course, allow Australians to get educated, go to hospitals and get the services that they need.

What we need to see from the Labor Party is proper and serious engagement on this with business so that business isn't impacted by it. In doing that, we can also make sure that those businesses are doing everything they can to continue to engage Pacific workers because the remittances from the PALM are absolutely vital for those Pacific nations. Making sure that this program works is in everyone's interest. It's in our national interest, and it's obviously in the interest of those Pacific nations, which is why—and the previous speaker mentioned it—we're opposed to the Pacific engagement visa. Who else but the Labor Party would come up with the idea that, to get permanent residency in this country, we're going to have a lottery. Not only that, we're going to get you to pay money to put yourself in that lottery. Permanent residency has been debased to a lottery in this nation.

Where do the Labor Party get these ideas? Why is it that, when it comes to immigration, everything they touch is a complete and utter train wreck? It beggars belief. Rightly, Pacific island nations are deeply concerned by this. They're worried that their best and their brightest will be taken and the remittance flow will end. All you're doing is taking the very people who can build the bright future that we all want to see those Pacific nations enjoy.

I sincerely ask the Labor Party to just step back and think, 'Why are we overreaching on these changes to the PALM, a system that we know has worked well?' Alright, there have been some instances where there has been exploitation. We need to address it and we need to fix it, but we need to do it in a way that works with those businesses who use the PALM and who need the PALM because they've advertised and tried in every way they can to get Australian workers to do the job that they want them to do, but they haven't been able to. Instead we've got this very good scheme which enables us to boost the Pacific through remittances and also to make sure that we can get the job done that we need to get done.

Labor always makes a mess of immigration when it's in power. We all know it. Try doing nothing. It might help, rather than changes like these.

The Albanese government understands the importance of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme to our Pacific family and to the Australian producers that benefit. That's why we are growing the scheme. When our government came to office, the total number of PALM workers in Australia was just over 24,400. In the October 2022 budget, we committed to reaching 35,000 workers by June this year. We reached that goal last December, six months ahead of schedule. The 2023-24 budget again expanded the scheme responsibly, which now provides jobs to 37,700 Pacific and Timor-Leste workers. It also signalled a significant reform to PALM.

The government will strengthen its oversight of the scheme by bringing its domestic delivery into the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. This will better protect workers and improve their experience. It will increase the scheme's regional footprint and ensure sufficient support for small growers. For the first time, we will fund the scheme sustainably. The government will provide an additional $168.1 million over four years to insource domestic operations. We are ensuring that agencies are resourced to effectively manage the scheme's integrity as it grows. I welcome this change because it fulfils our commitment to stamping out migrant worker exploitation. We have zero tolerance for worker mistreatment. We are the Labor Party.

Participating countries will receive additional resources to boost the number of workers taking up jobs in Australia, ensuring that each country can manage a growing scheme on terms that it judges meet its developmental goals while helping Australian businesses access a pool of productive and reliable workers. This will produce a brain gain for the Pacific and Timor-Leste. I know that this is a big issue for some countries in the Pacific, including Samoa, which I visited in June and where there are concerns about PALM causing a brain drain to Australia. Additionally, the government will help over 1,000 PALM scheme workers gain formal qualifications. This measure will deliver a skills dividend across the Pacific, and that is that skills gain that I just spoke about. We will also make it easier for PALM scheme workers to access their superannuation savings when they return home. Finally, the government will provide access to Medicare for an initial 200 families who participate in a pilot. PALM is not only important for the development needs of our Pacific family; it is of clear importance to Australia's national interests as well.

I note in passing that this motion's claim that PALM was 'established by the coalition' is, of course, by no means the full story, as is often the case with those opposite. The pilot was a Rudd Labor government innovation in 2008. It continued under Prime Minister Gillard in 2012, and the coalition rebadged and reformed it in 2018 and 2021. I give them some credit for continuing it but not for creating PALM.

The scheme really matters to businesses across our country, because it fills workplace shortages in regional Australia. In the Northern Territory, which is proud to host over 1,000 PALM workers, we have seen 215 arrive from Samoa and 151 from Vanuatu to pick mangoes in recent times, and I know that at the end of last year there were a couple of hundred people from Timor-Leste in the Northern Territory as well. Thirty-five Samoans have also served as aged-care and disability support workers in remote areas of the Territory, which will be a brain gain when they return home to Samoa.

These reforms will ensure that PALM workers' stay in Australia not only benefits them personally and their families, by helping them send remittance back to their communities—which in places like Tonga is worth up to 38 per cent of their GDP, which is huge for that country and many others—but also benefits, most importantly, Australian businesses and Australian foreign relations with our Pacific family, because—let's face it—it's a more contested environment in the Pacific these days. So it's important for Pacific countries and it's important for Australia as well.

I am happy to rise today to speak on behalf of the primary producers in my electorate and to call out these poorly considered changes to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. These changes have been forced through by this government without consultation with the very Australians the scheme was originally designed to help. I have spoken to those Australians in my electorate, and they are telling me exactly that.

The PALM scheme was devised with a specific purpose by the coalition in 2021. It was introduced as a direct response to farmers' bumper crops literally being left to rot on the vine or in the fields due to a lack of labour to harvest them. Not only was it affecting those farmers and their livelihoods, but also every Australian was being forced to pay more at the checkout due to supply chain bottlenecks.

At the time of its introduction, employers were able to hire Pacific and Timor-Leste workers in unskilled, low-skilled and semiskilled positions for seasonal work of up to nine months, or longer—in certain roles, for up to four years. The scheme recognised that work that involves crops is seasonal, and its parameters were designed and devised to accommodate that. There were checks and balances included, to ensure that the employers were officially approved in order to recruit under the PALM scheme and to provide protection for workers from potential exploitation.

I do accept that there was a handful of incidents where workers were exploited. And nobody wants to see that. Nobody wants to see people living in cramped conditions. But the protections were there. It doesn't matter what industry you are in; there are always going to be unscrupulous people. That is why we need the appropriate checks and balances, to ensure that those protections are there.

But these changes are, in fact, pushing people away from the PALM scheme, and that's going to have a negative effect on those who rely so heavily on those workers coming to Australia to work in these industries—on farmers like the blueberry, avocado and banana producers in my own electorate of Cowper. Its popularity was illustrated by the nearly 40,000 workers working in the country under the scheme, as recently as May this year, and the farmers that I've spoken to were extremely grateful for the old scheme, the way it was. But it just seems that the Labor government wishes to change this for change's sake and without the appropriate consultation.

The most recent budget introduced a minimum 30-hour week, each week, every week, for each worker. This simply isn't sustainable for the vast majority of seasonal producers. It also disregards the preference of many workers themselves, who were able to work longer hours over shorter periods of time, making as much money as possible in short bursts, before returning home to their families—much like our own fly in, fly out workers in other industries around the country. I know I have accused this government of being metro-centric and ignoring the regions before, in a wide range of policy. But I feel justified in repeating that sentiment in relation to these changes.

The blanket process has been made in favour of service industries like aged care. Yes, we need workers in aged care—but over and above primary production? It's not to say that aged care doesn't need that assistance, but why are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? Surely the policy could be designed to better fit the agricultural industry, which, quite often, seems to be left to last.

I urge this government to reconsider its most recent changes to what was, previously, successful coalition policy. Don't make these changes. Don't make life harder for our families. And don't prevent immigrants coming over here to pick fruit.

Quite simply put, these are workers who have left their families behind for several months at a time. I feel and I hope that it is only human for us to see the importance of safeguarding the workers who come here from nations who are our Pacific friends, to work in jobs, to fill labour shortages in Australia. These are workers who have travelled to an unfamiliar land with an unfamiliar industrial relations system, who can easily fall victim to unscrupulous behaviour. Looking at this another way entirely, treating workers from any one of our Pacific friends with respect and dignity can go a long way to ensuring that more continue to do so. And it would certainly go a long way to restoring and strengthening Australia's bonds with and reputation in those nations in question.

Whilst I may be taking an old and regrettable quote from the member of Riverina out of context, workers from the Pacific do come here to pick our fruit. They also staff aged-care homes, where there are a multitude of jobs in dire need of filling immediate-term vacancies. I urge those opposite to respect our Pacific neighbours and the workers who put in the hard yards for the promise of their toil on our lands leading to a better tomorrow for their families.

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30