I present report No. 22 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday 26 February 2024. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 13 February 2024.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 13 February 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 26 February 2024, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 DR HAINES: To present a Bill for an Act to reform the governance, performance and accountability of grants, Investment Mandates and use of public resources, and for related purposes. (Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024)

(Notice given 12 February 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

2 MS STEGGALL: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and for related purposes. (Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 Forever and Protect Our Coastal Waters) Bill 2024)

(Notice given 13 February 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

3 MR WILKIE: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the conduct of Australian airlines has recently come under fire for a variety of practices, such as sometimes only offering Frequent Flyer and discount tickets one way, meaning customers are stuck with expensive tickets the other way, increasingly frequent flight delays and cancellations, and the linkage of passenger personal profiles to the fares offered to them;

(b) seeking refunds and other assistance for cancelled flights often leaves consumers feeling underwhelmed, with many offered little to no compensation for flight disruptions;

(c) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is concerned about the high level of complaints about airlines as well as their low reliability of services;

(d) Australian airline staff are among the best in the world, yet bear the brunt of increasingly frustrated customers because of improper decisions by management within airline companies; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) accept the ACCC's recommendations made in its submission to the Australian Government's Aviation Green Paper;

(b) establish an independent airline ombudsman with the power to make binding decisions, to allow for fair and efficient resolution of customer complaints; and

(c) establish a targeted and fit-for-purpose compensation scheme for delayed and cancelled flights.

(Notice given 13 February 2024.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Wilkie 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

4 MR PASIN: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Australia's severe and intense weather events over recent years have placed immense pressure on the nation's regional, rural, and remote road network;

(b) the Australian Local Government Association estimates that the cost of repairing and replacing flood impacted roads is at least $3.8 billion in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria alone; and

(c) the Government has scrapped the specifically targeted Bridges Renewal Program and Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program which, when combined, were valued at $193.5 million per annum by 2026-27;

(2) acknowledges that the federal budget saw financial assistance grants to local government cut as a percentage of tax revenue from 0.52 per cent to 0.50 per cent in stark contrast to councils' long-term aim of achieving 1.0 per cent of tax revenue; and

(3) calls on the Government to invest in Australia's regional rural and remote road network to support local governments, improve road safety and freight productivity.

(Notice given 6 February 2024.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Pasin 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1 BETTER AND FAIRER EDUCATION SYSTEM: Resumption of debate (from 12 February 2024) on the motion of Dr Reid—That this House acknowledges the Government's commitment and actions to build a better and fairer education system from early education right through to university, by:

(1) delivering cheaper child care which is making early education and care more affordable for 1.2 million Australian families;

(2) tackling the teacher shortage through the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan;

(3) delivering $275.2 million to schools to improve school infrastructure through the Schools Upgrade Fund;

(4) providing $203.7 million in funding to support student wellbeing across every school in the country through the Student Wellbeing Boost;

(5) working with state and territory governments to get all schools on a path to full and fair funding; and

(6) setting the higher education system up for the future through the Universities Accord, and implementing the priority actions of the accord interim report, which delivers:

(a) an additional 20 new regional university study hubs and 14 suburban university study hubs;

(b) demand driven places for First Nations students from metropolitan areas;

(c) the removal of the unfair 50 per cent pass rule; and

(d) university governance reforms.

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 DR M RYAN: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that public perceptions of the pervasive influence that lobbyists have over political decision-making have worsened in recent years;

(2) recognises that there is presently no consistent or visible way of knowing which corporate or stakeholder groups are meeting with Government Ministers;

(3) commits to the:

(a) timely publication of ministerial diaries as a vital transparency and accountability measure;

(b) maintenance and publication of a searchable register that includes the names of all lobbyists accessing this building, and that those persons be identified as a professional lobbyist, an in-house lobbyist and/or a former Government representative; and

(c) transparency of meetings held by those individuals with Members of Parliament; and

(4) agrees to extend the post-employment cooling-off period for former Ministers and senior government officials to three years, in keeping with international best practice.

(Notice given 12 February 2024.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Dr M Ryan 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

2 MR LAXALE: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges:

(a) the work the Government has undertaken to support Australia's multicultural communities, including:

(i) launching the Multicultural Framework Review;

(ii) supporting a cohesive and inclusive multicultural society;

(iii) investing $20 million in the Adult Migrant English Program;

(iv) extending the Community Language Schools grant program to pre-schoolers;

(v) committing $7.5 million to fund the Australian Human Rights Commission to complete its National Anti-Racism Framework;

(vi) reducing citizenship processing times by 42 per cent to the lowest level in six years; and

(vii) clearing the visa backlogs for nearly 1 million people left behind by the Liberal Party and slashing wait time;

(b) that Australia is proudly one of the world's most vibrant and successful multicultural societies; and

(c) the positive contribution that migration has made to our country, culture and economy; and

(2) condemns the:

(a) Liberal and National parties for their neglect of the immigration system, as outlined in the Nixon Review; and

(b) comments from a former Prime Minister on 2 November 2023, when he stated that he 'always had trouble' with the concept of multiculturalism.

(Notice given 15 November 2023.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Laxale 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MR CALDWELL: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) a report released on 7 February 2024 by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) on the Australian Passport Office revealed that passport applications were not being processed in a 'timely and resource efficient manner';

(b) since being elected, the Government has hiked up the price of Australian adult passports of 10 years by $38 and is planning for a second increase this year of $52 from 1 July 2024;

(c) while the Treasurer has called the price hike a 'relatively modest' change, Australians will be paying 29 per cent more to get their passports during a cost of living crunch; and

(d) Australians already pay more for their holiday thanks to the Government blocking airline competition and now they are paying more just to be allowed to leave the country; and

(2) calls on the Government to reverse their big passport price hike until they comprehensively respond to the ANAO recommendations so that Australians get a fair deal on passports.

(Notice given 13 February 2024.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Caldwell 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

4 MS CLAYDON: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) on 2 November 2023, Australia with 186 other member states again voted for the United Nations General Assembly resolution against the United States' longstanding economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba;

(b) only two member states have voted consistently against the resolution since it was first introduced in 1992, demonstrating overwhelming international support for the end of the embargo; and

(c) the embargo has unfairly hindered the development of the Cuban economy, created decades of economic hardship and has had a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of the Cuban people;

(2) further notes that the embargo:

(a) constitutes a serious and systemic violation of the norms of international law and the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) is not conducive to friendly relations and cooperation between nations and peoples, and it directly affects the development of the Cuban economy and its people; and

(c) impedes the ability of Australian citizens to trade bilaterally;

(3) recognises that sustained international pressure will be one of the most influential methods of ending this enduring and unfair embargo; and

(4) reaffirms Australia's support for an end to the embargo.

(Notice given 6 February 2024.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Claydon 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

5 MS PRICE: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) this Government spent $450 million on the divisive Voice to Parliament referendum that was rejected by each state and territory, excluding the Australian Capital Territory;

(b) the proposal for a Voice to Parliament was put forward as an urgent solution to help close the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;

(c) since the referendum this Government has been completely absent in this space and has demonstrated that they have no plan B; and

(d) there are proposals on the table that would make a demonstrable difference that this Government refuses to implement, including:

(i) announcing an audit into Commonwealth spending for Indigenous specific programs to identify waste in financial resources and programs that are making a difference;

(ii) establishing a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities; and

(iii) re-instating the cashless debit card in vulnerable communities; and

(2) calls on the Government to focus on practical actions like these to assist in closing the gap.

(Notice given 8 February 2024.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Ms Price 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices — continued

6 MR LEESER: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) that February 2024 marks two years since Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine;

(b) the Ukrainian people continue to show strength, determination and courage in defending their land and resisting Russia's unlawful invasion;

(c) the decision in September 2023 of the Government to retire the MRH-90 Taipan helicopters following the loss of four lives during a training accident; and

(d) the request of the Ukrainian Government in late 2023 for Australia to donate the MRH-90 Taipan helicopters to assist in its ongoing war efforts to defend their homeland.

(2) expresses concern regarding the:

(a) decision of the Government to bring forward its program of dismantling of the MRH-90 Taipan helicopters;

(b) Government's weak and too-little, too-late response to requests for assistance from the government of Ukraine; and

(c) failure of the Government to maintain the former Government's record of delivering a comprehensive package of support that established Australia as the largest non-NATO contributor to Ukraine; and

(3) calls on the Government to demonstrate Australia's continued support for Ukraine by urgently:

(a) seeking advice from defence industry and NATO partners as to what support may be available to facilitate the refurbishment and operation of MRH-90 Taipan helicopters by Ukraine and reconsider the response to the government of Ukraine;

(b) responding affirmatively to the Ukrainian request for thermal power to assist in power generation;

(c) re-establishing Australia's embassy in Kyiv; and

(d) delivering a comprehensive strategy of support covering military, humanitarian and energy supplies.

(Notice given 8 February 2024.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Leeser 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Resumption of debate (from 12 February 2024) on the motion of Mr Rae—That this House:

(1) acknowledges that through the passage of its 'closing loopholes' legislation, the Government has closed loopholes used by some employers to undercut wages, conditions and safety for Australian workers, including by:

(a) stopping companies using labour hire as a means of underpaying their workers;

(b) making it a criminal offence for employers to deliberately steal their workers' wages;

(c) closing the loophole in which large businesses could claim small business exemptions during insolvency;

(d) introducing a new criminal offence of industrial manslaughter;

(e) ensuring better support for first responders with post-traumatic stress disorder;

(f) protecting workers subjected to family and domestic violence from discrimination at work; and

(g) expanding the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include silica;

(2) recognises that many Australian families are doing it tough dealing with the cost of living, and that getting wages moving again is a key part of addressing the cost of living;

(3) notes that the Opposition has voted against legislation to get wages moving 36 times in this term of Parliament; and

(4) calls on the Opposition to support the remaining elements of the 'closing loopholes' legislation, including minimum standards for gig workers, reforms to the road transport industry and a better deal for casual workers who want to become permanent.

Time allotted 5 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices — continued

7 MS WARE: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) National Cabinet agreed to a national target to build 1.2 million new well-located homes over five years from 1 July 2024; and

(b) the New South Wales Government has conceded that it cannot reach its agreed housing targets of 75,000 new dwellings a year over the next five years;

(2) expresses concern that, as a flow-on consequence, the Commonwealth Government cannot reach its target to construct 1.2 million new homes over five years;

(3) acknowledges that:

(a) the Government's pipedream figure for new housing did not take into account:

(i) record high numbers of liquidations in the building and construction industry;

(ii) a shortage of available construction materials;

(iii) increasing construction material costs; and

(iv) a shortage of skilled tradespeople; and

(b) the Government refused to intervene in the dispute between the Maritime Union of Australia and DP World at container terminals, leading to a 50,000 container backlog and further exacerbating construction material shortages; and

(4) further notes that the Government has:

(a) legislated a failed housing plan; and

(b) ultimately demonstrated that it cannot develop any policy to address the housing crisis, let alone deliver it.

(Notice given 13 February 2024.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Ware 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

8 MRS PHILLIPS: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Australian Government recently published Informing Regional Investment: State of Australia's Regions 2024 which provides evidence and insights on contemporary topics of interest across Australia's diverse regions;

(2) considers the 2024 report focuses on contemporary and pressing issues as identified at the local level, including:

(a) ensuring regional workforces are positioned to meet the needs of today and tomorrow;

(b) promoting the economic aspirations, cultures and languages of First Nations people;

(c) supporting places with amenity, services and economic opportunities;

(d) collaboratively addressing issues like housing availability and affordability and access to quality early childhood education and care;

(e) preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters; and

(f) responding to challenges and opportunities as we transition to a net zero emissions future; and

(3) commends the current Australian Government for their ongoing commitment to advance the lives of regional Australia.

(Notice given 7 February 2024.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Mrs Phillips 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

THE HON D. M. DICK MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

14 October 2024

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

We're here to talk about tax. A lot of people are intimidated by the mention of tax, so let's start with why tax matters. It matters because tax shapes the country we want to be. When I think about why it's great to be an Australian, I often think of my mum's life, because she was a kid who arrived from Italy at the age of 11 with no money, no English and no connections. She finished school at 14 and, because of her own talent, energy and luck, she was able to create a great life for herself and her family.

When I think about the country we want Australia to be, I think we want it to be a country that encourages innovation, creativity and entrepreneurialism, a place where every individual can boldly bring their best talents to the community and to the world. But we also want it to be a country where every Australian can create a good life for themselves and their families, whatever their background, whatever job they do. We want it to be a country where you're not on your own when things go wrong. Our tax system needs to support these goals: entrepreneurialism, fairness, a good life and compassion. But right now it isn't, and that is why we need to talk about tax.

The topic today is the stage 3 reforms that the government has made changes to and the bills for which, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024, are now before the House. I acknowledge that right now many people across the country, including in my community, are experiencing enormous financial strain. These are some of the hardest times they've ever faced, and I see that it is appropriate that government does whatever it can to ease their burden right now. I acknowledge that the stage 3 changes that the government is going to put through will help a lot of families who need help right now, so let's understand not only what the government is putting through but also what the choices and costs are of what they have decided to reject.

Firstly, as I acknowledged, this is going to help a lot of people, a lot of working families experiencing financial strain. Secondly, I acknowledge that the changes to stage 3 will improve labour participation, and that is really important. I think they expect that there are going to be about 930,000 more hours per week that people will be more working in the economy. That is actually a really positive difference, particularly in the lives of women.

I think that this is a package that has support from a broad range of the community, but we are also giving things up by making these changes to stage 3, and I do not think these have been acknowledged appropriately. Firstly, we are giving up a lot of benefits in terms of simplifying the tax system—in particular, instead of having four different brackets, having one bracket from $45,000 to $200,000, which was the original stage 3. That would ensure that, for a lot of people, the desire to plan taxes and to use many company structures or other things to try to minimise their taxes was no longer attractive. That would actually add to the integrity of our tax system. It would make it simpler, make it easier to administer and make it less likely that people are going to use other complicated structures to avoid taxes. Secondly, the original stage 3 addressed bracket creep and incentives that the revised government proposal doesn't. While I support the opportunity that the government's proposal has made to increase labour participation, particularly at the lower income scales of the country, this also misses out on the opportunity to do it at the higher income scales and address bracket creep at the higher income scales, which I think is absolutely appropriate as well.

I supported the original stage 3, and when I came to considering whether I'd support the government's changes, the thing I thought was most important was going back to the community, because I knew that the community was going to be significantly affected by these changes and I wanted to know what they thought. In Wentworth, what we found through extensive consultation with people on the street, through emails and also through a survey, which ended up with over 1,700 responses, was that 70 per cent of the community supported the changes and that there was strong support, particularly among older parts of the community. There were many people who said they would benefit enormously from these changes. There were also people who said, 'You know what? I would've been better off under the original package, but I am supportive of the changes because I believe that these are the right ones.' As one person said to me, 'I will pay more tax, but I do not have a problem with that. I think we need to maintain a fairer progressive tax system.' That was something that came across from many members of the Wentworth community.

However, there are some people in Wentworth and across the country who are significantly negatively affected by these changes and have real concerns about them. One person wrote to me and said: 'It's going to have a big impact on my family. We are both in our 30s, two kids full time in day care, huge mortgage, cost of living increasing. We were relying on this cut, and now half of it has been stripped away.' I think it is really important to raise that and to talk about these people, because I do not think we've been having the conversation about the people who are affected in this case.

I started my speech talking about the idea of fairness and everybody being able to build a good life. One group I really think about a lot is younger people who don't have family backing to buy a house or get themselves set up. All they've got is the sweat of their brow, what they can build themselves. I admire those people who can really build up and create a different life to the one they were brought up with. This is what I think a lot of the Australian dream is really based on. But, in a country where we rely so heavily on income taxes and on taxing working people, as we do currently, it means that those people, if they don't have financial backing, can't get ahead in the way that previous Australian generations could. I think of this group of young people in their 30s. Maybe they don't have family who can help them with a mortgage. Maybe they don't have family who can help them with a deposit. They've started out and built something up. They were relying on the government to do what they said they were going to do and deliver a tax package, and that's what they expected in terms of their family budgeting.

As we think through this, we need to reflect on what else needs to change on tax. Based on the feedback from Wentworth and on broader considerations, I am going to support this package, but what I'm going to say to the House—which I've said publicly before—is that this mustn't be the end. We have a flawed tax system, and this must be the parliament that starts to address it. At the next election, we need to see ambitious tax reform going onto the agenda. I think what we have with the original stage 3 and right now is a missed opportunity. When I look at the tax system, the question I ask is not the academic one of, 'How do we optimise this from an economist's point of view?' What I really care about is, 'What is this going to do for Australian people?'

There are three massive challenges we are facing as a country that our current tax system does not address: intergenerational equity and housing; growth and productivity; and how we address climate action. Our tax system currently does not address these. While the changes to stage 3 and the other changes that the government has made will make some impact on the economy, they do not fundamentally affect or address the major issues facing our economy, and that is why we need broader tax reform.

I will give you a couple of perspectives on intergenerational equity. If you look at what is happening to younger generations, there is a sense—as there was from a young man who came to see me—that you can do everything right, you can study hard, you can get a big HECS debt, you can get a good job, but you still don't know if you'll ever be able to afford a home. That's the feeling on the street, but that's also represented in the numbers, where you see that a household that is headed by somebody over the age of 65 has had an increase in wealth by around 50 per cent in the last 10 or so years, but a household headed by someone under the age of 35 has had pretty much no increase in wealth.

So we've seen a disparity emerging between the wealth and prospects of different generations in our society. I do not support that, and I think it's why we need to look at tax, because tax influences that. Our capital gains tax system, our negative gearing tax system and our stamp duty all influence the housing market in different forms, and the housing market has been one of the biggest ways that younger people have been kept out of building the wealth and the security that previous generations have. For example, regarding stamp duty, the New South Wales Treasury's own estimates said that 350,000 more people would be owning their own home if we could move from stamp duty into land tax. This is where reform is urgently needed across our system.

The second major issue facing our economy is growth. Australia has low productivity growth, and so do many other economies. Why do we care about productivity growth? Because it drives our ability to pay for the services we want. If we had the long-term productivity growth that we had in the past we would have an estimated $50 billion more in our budget right now to supply and support things that are important or to give back to the people who earn that money, the taxpayers. But we don't have that strong productivity growth, and my concern is that we also don't have the policy settings to drive that.

One of the big policy settings we need to be aware of is the tax system. We have a corporate tax system where companies with revenue of over $50 million are now paying 30 per cent tax. This is way out of step with the OECD, where the average is 24.5 per cent. We cannot pretend in this country, one of the most open and trading countries of the world, that our tax system and the fact that we have an uncompetitive tax system for medium-size businesses does not affect the attractiveness of Australia as a destination for investment. Right now we are seeing Australia being a capital exporter rather than a capital importer .We're also seeing Australia with lower R&D investment and dropping foreign direct investment. These are all indicators that not only do we have sluggish productivity but also we're not making the changes we need to in order to grow our productivity in the future, and that is problematic for our system.

Finally, on climate, I think we're in a situation where we know we need to make changes and we're starting to make those changes to address the climate catastrophe that we have in front of us. But the ways that we're doing this, because we will not deal with the tax system, are some of the most expensive ways that we could possibly do it. We are wasting money because we won't face up to the fact that our tax system is not equipped to deal with the climate emergency we're facing. It means the investments we make cost us more money than they otherwise would. That is why we need to also reform our tax system in relation to climate.

So, when I look at the stage 3 change and I look at the other changes the government has put through—which include changes to superannuation, PRRT, changes to FBT on electric vehicles and other pieces—there are some parts I agree with, some parts I disagree with and some bits on the margin. I know tax change is difficult, and I accept that many a career has been won or lost on the basis of tax changes. But my point is that we need to be more ambitious, and we across the parliament have responsibility both to not wedge each other on these issues—and I'm afraid I haven't seen that yet—and to make sure we face up to the extreme issues the country is facing and have the guts to deal with them.

A major question I need to address in this speech is around integrity and broken promises, because this is clearly a broken promise. My electorate, probably more than any other, feels that because of the incomes of people in my electorate. I have three issues with what the government has done in this regard. I recognise that governments will need to change when circumstances change. I think that is appropriate. However, from a timing point of view, if the government had been contemplating a change like this they should have done as much as possible to do it as early as possible so that the people who are affected—the people who were budgeting, the people who got into rentals and maybe made decisions about houses based on what they expected their income to be—knew what they were getting into. So, I think that is unacceptable.

The second piece I'm really concerned about is the lack of acknowledgement by the government that some people really lost out and some people took the government at their word. The government has spoken a lot about the difference it's making to other people in the country, and I support that, and that is why I'm voting for this. But they should also acknowledge the people who have been affected negatively by this change in taxes who took the government at its word and were told that they were able to trust the government on this.

Finally, my question to the government is whether they should have made the commitment to stage 3 in the first place, given that they have now said they're not interested in further changes that would support the original stage 3 package. If they're not willing to support further changes that would address what stage 3 was trying to do, that gives us a real sense that they weren't really backing it in the first place, and I have real concern about that. This is the moment to deal with tax reform. We must do it coming into the next election, and this is a challenge across the parliament.

I'm pleased to rise today in support of Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts for middle Australia, because every single taxpayer in my electorate of Greenway—and, indeed, the 902,000 taxpayers who call Western Sydney home—deserve to keep more of what they earn. From 1 July this year they will, thanks to the Albanese Labor government. Nearly nine in 10 taxpayers in Western Sydney will receive a larger tax cut under our plan than under the Morrison government's proposal from five years ago.

We are delivering tax cuts for the workers in disability, retail and transport, for the health- and aged-care workers, and for the accountants, teachers and tradies—every taxpayer. While our plan is responsibly targeted to boost support for hardworking families, it delivers for every taxpayer right up and down the income ladder. A worker on $80,000, for example, will receive a tax cut worth more than $1,670 a year, while a cleaner earning $50,000 will receive a tax cut worth over $900 a year. Under the coalition's alternative, many of these workers, often working part time with families, would have got nothing—not a dollar. All our wonderful nurses and postal workers will get a tax cut, with over 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a larger tax cut as a result of Labor's plan. Those earning over $150,000 a year will also receive a tax cut of at least $3,700.

Families in Greenway understand that the Albanese government is on their side. Greenway constituent Maura wrote to me recently to give her heartfelt thanks, as did Santino, who said that Labor's tax cuts were 'so fantastic'. Those are just a few examples of Greenway locals who are relieved by the meaningful difference Labor is making to help ease cost-of-living pressures. I know there are many people in my electorate who are doing it tough right now, including households experiencing high levels of mortgage stress. Local residents, many of whom are migrants who moved to Australia for opportunities for themselves and their children, are asking us to do more to help. To say to those families that there's nothing their government can do would be a furphy. The federal government is in a position to help without making the economic situation worse by adding to inflation, and our better tax cut plan does just that.

It complements our work to deliver electricity bill relief and cheaper child care, medicines and GP visits. We have increased rent assistance, delivered fee-free TAFE places and extended free broadband for school students with no connectivity at home. Labor recently launched an ACCC inquiry into supermarket prices and allegations of price gouging—the first of its kind since 2008. And we are getting wages moving because we want workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Helping our communities with the cost of living is our No. 1 priority. If the cost of essentials rises too fast, people can't plan or save for the future.

One of the great privileges I have in representing Greenway is meeting the people for whom our Labor policies are making a real difference. We're helping people just like Maura and Santino to strive for more to make a good life for themselves and their families. Unlike the coalition, which just says no, the Albanese government is saying yes to supporting Western Sydney families keeping more of what they earn. These new tax cuts are the right decision at the right time for the right reasons.

I rise to speak about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. I want to put three propositions to the House this morning. The first is that what the Albanese government has done here is a terrible failure of tax reform. My second proposition is that this is a cynical breach of a promise made by the Prime Minister and other senior Labor figures over 100 times. My third proposition is that this is a second best to what the coalition has legislated, and the coalition has reached a decision because we are in a world, to use the economic jargon, of second bests. Let's start with the terrible failure of tax reform which this backflip by the Albanese Labor government represents. The rationale for these stage 3 tax cuts was to deliver structural reform to the tax system, to encourage aspirational Australians who want to work hard and get ahead. The whole design of the stage 3 tax cuts was that, between $45,000 and $200,000 of income, anywhere you are in that range, you know that you would only be paying 30c cents in the dollar.

The stage 3 tax cuts were part of a long-term plan that was designed and legislated several years ago. It was done with the view of giving Australians adequate notice of the change that was coming to allow them to make their decisions about how they wish to respond, should they choose to do so. If you were thinking about doing some extra shifts or getting an extra qualification so your earnings increase or if you were thinking about starting a business, you would do these things with the knowledge that, for an income right up to $200,000, the most that you would be paying would be 30c in the dollar in tax.

This was a design intended to address the known and corrosive impact of bracket creep, which results in more of your income being taken in tax every year through the effect of inflation. I make the point that a very deliberate intention of this reform was to remove the 37c tax bracket. The result would be a simpler, clearer, fairer tax system. There would be a 30c bracket and a 45c bracket. The effect of the 30c bracket under the plan, legislated by the coalition and promised to be upheld more than 100 times by the Prime Minister and his party, would have been to cast onto the ash heap of history the 37c per cent tax bracket and, in turn, unleash greater activity, greater energy, greater aspiration by Australians in the knowledge that throughout that range, from $45,000 to $200,000, they would pay no more than 30 cents in tax.

Unfortunately, all of that has now been trashed by the Albanese Labor government. The government have said a lot of deeply misleading and inaccurate things in the course of justifying this egregious broken promise. One of the things we never hear from those opposite is the historical fact that this is stage 3 and that suggests, doesn't it, that there was a stage 1 and a stage 2. Indeed, there was a stage 1 and stage 2, each of which were very much focused on reducing the burden on low- and middle-income earners. That was a very important component of the coalition's plan.

The third component of the coalition's plan was to change the tax system through this long-term reform that would increase the incentive for people as they thought about how much work they wanted to do. It has to be said that one of the deeply regrettable consequences of this cynical political decision, this political backflip, taken just months before this long-term change was due to take effect, having been legislated several years ago, is that it will make it so much harder in the future for any government that wants to engage in serious reform of our tax system.

You need only talk to any economist and they will tell you that our tax system is a drag on Australia's productivity, on Australia's competitiveness, on Australia's prosperity. Tax policy experts consistently argue for a simpler system and one that imposes, in the economic jargon, the smallest possible deadweight loss. According to John Humphreys of the Australian Taxpayers Alliance, 'Stage three income tax cuts represent Australia's most important piece of microeconomic reform in 20 years.' He adds the cuts would have created 'a simpler, more efficient tax system that will help boost productivity and promote long-term wage growth'.

Economists talk about a dynamic as compared to a comparative static perspective. What we hear from Labor and what we hear from the Left is a comparative static perspective. You assume that the income that every Australian has now is cast in stone and the only thing that could change is the tax rate, and that leads to these long tables of winners and losers. But the whole point is the economy is not static; it is dynamic. People change their behaviour in response to incentives. If you face a lower tax rate, you have a stronger incentive to work harder. That is good for individuals and good for the entire economy because the economy grows. Creating that stronger incentive is what the stage 3 tax cuts are all about. Now, all of that has been torn up and thrown in the bin.

Let me turn secondly to this cynical breach of a promise that we have seen. This is a triumph of crass, short-term political opportunism over the long-term tax reform process. For over three years, Labor consistently said they would honour the stage 3 tax cuts. In July 2021, the then opposition leader, the member for Grayndler, and his Treasury spokesman, the member for Rankin, said:

An Albanese Labor Government will deliver the same legislated tax relief to more than 9 million Australians as the Morrison Government.

Their explanation for why they were going to do this was straightforward:

Labor is providing certainty and clarity to Australian working families after a difficult two years …

Well, they promised certainty and clarity; they delivered the opposite. On more than 100 occasions, the Prime Minister and other senior Labor politicians committed to maintaining the stage 3 tax cuts. They committed to maintaining the tax cuts which are in the legislation now and have been for several years.

This was a promise made repeatedly before the 2022 election, during the 2022 election and after the 2022 election, including numerous times in December 2023 and January 2024. We know from what has now been revealed, including through Senate estimates, that at the same time that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were repeatedly saying to Australians, 'We have not changed our position; we remain committed to the stage 3 tax cuts,' they had in fact changed their position. They had directed Treasury to proceed to come up with a changed plan. They assert this ludicrous proposition that it was all Treasury's work. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer were just sitting at their desks, twiddling their thumbs, whistling, looking into the middle distance, and all of a sudden, bang! On their desks dropped a new plan that Treasury had worked up all of its own volition.

That is one of the many ludicrous and completely non-credible claims that have been made by the government as they have twisted and turned and danced about trying to justify one of the most egregious breaches of trust ever committed by a prime minister against the Australian people. To say more than 100 times, 'We will take this course of action,' knowing that across the country people are listening to him, listening to the government, taking them in good faith and arranging their affairs in reliance on that promise, and then to cynically reverse that position is one of the worst breaches of trust Australians have ever seen from a prime minister.

What it means is that Australians cannot believe a word that comes out of the mouth of this Prime Minister, this Treasurer, any Labor minister or any Labor member of parliament. How can you believe a word they say when they told the Australian people 100 times and more—before the election, during the election, after the election—'We will maintain the stage 3 tax cuts,' and then cynically, deliberately, dumped that promise? They broke their promise. They looked the Australian people in the eye and said: 'Oh, that thing we said 100 times we were going to do? We're not going to do it.' It is hard to think of an example of more disgraceful conduct by a prime minister and by a political party than the conduct which has been engaged in by the Prime Minister and by the Treasurer over the last month.

After all of that, despite their claims that this is now justified because it will offer relief to Australians from cost-of-living pressures, the sorry truth is it will deliver very little relief at all. The fact is that in Labor's first 18 months of government the amount of personal income tax collected has risen by a record 27 per cent. Headline inflation is more than 1.6 per cent above the midpoint of the RBA's target band. Food, housing, insurance, health and education costs are all growing faster than the headline inflation rate.

What then will be the impact of the measure contained in this bill we're debating today? What we know is that for somebody on the average wage, their net after-tax real disposable income has fallen by $8,000 since Labor came to power just 18 months ago. That's $150 a week that somebody on the average income is worse off compared to 18 months ago. And yet that same person will receive a benefit of just $15 a week from these tax cuts that are now being trumpeted. So you've gone backwards $150 every week thanks to the rank economic incompetence of this government. And now the Prime Minister says: 'Great news! I'm going to deliver you an extra $15 a week.' It is a mere drop in the ocean. The reality is that people are hugely worse off under this government, and the tax cut that the Prime Minister is talking about barely touches the sides.

Let me turn, then, to the rationale for the position the opposition is taking on this bill. The Prime Minister seems frustrated. In question time he's been saying, 'Oh, well, if the opposition were fair dinkum, they would oppose this bill because they campaigned against my rejigged tax scales.' I'm sorry to break it to the Prime Minister: he can decide what his policy his; the opposition will decide what our position is. To use another piece of economic jargon, once the Prime Minister took his decision, we were in a world of second best not first best. The decision for the coalition became, 'What course of action should we now take given the government is going to take roughly $106 billion, the cost of the stage 3 tax cuts, and spend it all on a modified tax scale, different to the one legislated, different to the one they promised to maintain on over 100 occasions?' They won't just spend the $106 billion; indeed, they'll spend an extra $28 billion.

We are now in a world of second best, and this government is using its numbers in the House to ram through this outcome. But if the government of the day is using its numbers to offer a different set of tax cuts, then, if the first best has been removed, the choice for us is: do we support the second best? It is the second best, but we've made it plain we will support it. We've also said we'll be responsible, because we're not going to then commit to additional spending unless and until we can be satisfied it can be funded. We've been very clear we're committed to go into the next election with a tax reform package that's in keeping with the stage 3 tax reforms. Our package will deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes, fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in our tax system.

This has been one of the most unedifying breaches of trust by an Australian government for many years. The Prime Minister's standing has been permanently damaged. A valuable long-term reform has been junked. And for years to come we, as a nation, will lament this missed opportunity for reform.

It's always a great pleasure to follow a characteristically flaccid contribution by the member for Bradfield, the previous speaker, and perhaps seek to reintroduce a little intellectual honesty to the debate. We on the Labor side know that Australians are doing it tough. Global inflation and supply chain pressures have squeezed household budgets as the cost of living increases—and people are feeling the pinch. While inflation is moderating and our targeted assistance packages are providing important relief, we know that Australians still need support. That's why the Albanese Labor government has introduced these tax cuts—to provide cost-of-living support to Australian households doing it tough. It's about providing relief through reforming and reshaping our income tax system to ensure Australians keep more of what they earn.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 will deliver a fairer tax system, return bracket creep to taxpayers and drive labour supply in our economy. It's not only an important measure to address the cost-of-living challenge; it's an enduring reform that rewards the hardworking Australians at the heart of our economy. Nurses, teachers, truckies and retail workers will all get a bigger tax cut. In fact, 84 per cent of all Australian taxpayers will receive a larger tax cut under Labor's plan. That's because we're improving our income tax system right up and down the income scale.

From 1 July this year we're cutting the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent, we're cutting the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent, we're increasing the 37 per cent tax threshold from $120,000 a year to $135,000 a year, and we're increasing the top tax threshold from $180,000 a year to $190,000 a year—the first time this has been increased since Labor was last in office. This holistic reform will deliver more support to the working Australians who need it most.

In my electorate of Hawke, the average taxpayer will receive a tax cut of $1,428—that's $800 more than under the former Morrison plan. Every single one of the 73,000 taxpayers in my electorate of Hawke will receive a tax cut, and 89 per cent of people in my community will be better off under Labor's plan. These are local tradies, nurses, police officers and early childhood educators who will be taking home more pay every week, providing valuable relief to their household budgets. For example, a household in Melton in my electorate with a teacher on 85 grand and a part-time factory worker on 40 grand will save a total of $2,458—almost $1,500 more than under the Liberals' old Morrison plan. There are tens of thousands of households like this across my electorate and millions right across the country that will see similar savings.

Given that these changes will see every Australian taxpayer keep more of the money they earn, it should come as no surprise that Labor's tax cuts are also better for the economy. When we invest in our workforce, reward working people and properly incentivise participation, we grow the economic pie for all. Good economic management is all about building an economy that works for the people, not the other way round. That's why since Labor came to office we've increased funding to aged care and rolled out cheaper child care. That's why we've improved the pay and conditions of workers with our secure jobs, better pay bill and our closing loopholes reforms. That's why we've seen record increases to minimum and award wages, two consecutive quarters of real wage growth and the strongest wage growth for 15 years. And it's why we're delivering these tax cuts.

This is what the Albanese Labor government is all about. We're delivering higher wages and lower taxes so that Australians can earn more, keep more of what they earn and make the economy stronger for all. Treasury estimates that Labor's tax cuts will increase labour supply by nearly a million hours a week—more than double the impact of the Liberals' original plan. This is because Australians will be better incentivised to work more under Labor's tax cut plan, particularly in some of our most in demand professions, such as those in the care economy. Thanks to Labor's tax cuts, 97 per cent of registered nurses will be better off, 97 per cent of carers will be better off and 97 per cent of childcare workers will be better off. By incentivising taxpayers to work, Labor's tax cuts will boost labour supply across these professions right across our country and our economy.

Clearly, Labor's tax cuts aren't just about making our income tax system fairer; they're about responding to the current economic conditions that we face. It is important to remember that, since the former Liberal government legislated their plan five years ago, we've had a once-in-100-year pandemic, persistent global inflation and multiple foreign conflicts that have all contributed significantly to the rising cost of living for Australian households.

Unfortunately, while these rising costs have been felt by all Australians, they have disproportionately impacted low- and middle-income earners. The Treasury advice on Labor's tax cuts showed that people in the lowest income quintile were spending more than their disposable income as quarterly inflation peaked under the Liberals opposite. The advice also showed that working Australians were experiencing the highest increase in the cost of living, with those in the bottom three income quintiles far more likely to be experiencing financial stress. That's why Labor's tax cuts are necessary: to put more money in the pockets of every Australian taxpayer, especially those who need it most. Importantly, the Treasury also confirms that we can do this without adding to inflation, because Labor's tax cuts plan is a broadly revenue-neutral approach.

We know that those opposite will vote in favour of this bill despite the way they carry on. The Leader of the Opposition has publicly declared this. They might stand up at the dispatch box and flail around, but ultimately they will walk into this House and vote in favour of this tax plan. They refuse to admit that this government has made the right call by delivering larger tax cuts to more Australians. They just can't bring themselves to say it. Perhaps it's because they spent nearly a decade failing to live up to their own false sense of economic superiority. They failed to deliver a single surplus, they suppressed wages, they oversaw the worst decade for productivity in our country in 50 years and they racked up $1 trillion of Liberal debt. Meanwhile, in under two years, the Albanese Labor government has delivered the first surplus in 15 years. We've delivered tens of billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief through child care, energy bills, rents medicine and more; we're getting wages moving again, with wages growing at four per cent, the highest rate in 15 years; and we've had two consecutive quarters of real wage growth. And now we're delivering meaningful income tax reform, leaving more money in the pockets of every Australian taxpayer.

Given the Liberals' decade of failure, it is hardly surprising that they can't quite wrap their heads around another example of responsible economic management from the Albanese Labor government. It is almost as if they can't believe it's possible. They don't know what to do. When asked if the opposition would roll back Labor's tax cuts, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition jumped up and said: 'This is our position. This is absolutely our position.' While the Leader of the Opposition has since said that the Liberals will support Labor's tax cuts, it is clear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's statement and the blithering contributions from those opposite in this debate that they are being dragged kicking and screaming to it. It's clear that they're more interested in the politics than they are in the policy of cutting taxes for working people.

The case for Labor's tax cuts is absolutely crystal clear. It's good social policy, it's good fiscal policy and it's good economic policy. It will boost labour supply, return bracket creep to those it hits hardest and, most importantly, ensure that 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut on 1 July. I am very proud to be part of a Labor government that is delivering the support that the households in my community desperately need. Thanks to Labor's tax cuts, families right across Hawke, from Sunbury to Melton and from Bacchus Marsh to Ballan, will be able to earn more and keep of what they earn, and we'll keep looking out for them as they face the cost-of-living pressures that they are currently facing.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Whilst I support the assistance that this amending legislation will provide to many in our communities, I do have great reservations as to how we have arrived at this point and the way in which the government has handled this issue over several years now. I was in this place when the original tax package was first legislated in 2019 and raised concerns then in relation to the stage 3 tax package because it was not due to take effect for some five years and that good policy would require keeping an open mind and considering the economic circumstances of the time. So it was with mixed feelings that I watched the PM and the new government repeatedly dig in, denying that there would need to be a consideration of that tax package, after having supported it in the last government, and resisting time and time again. I think this ultimately created an unnecessary hole, which is unfortunate.

I also really dislike, and many in my community have raised, the tone of class warfare coming from the government, which is disappointing. It's a populist pitch. The pitch that those on higher incomes can afford to receive less of a tax cut than the coalition's legislated package shows the core of the issue. We rely far too much on personal income tax to fulfil government coffers, which is overwhelmingly contributed to, ultimately, by tax on higher incomes. We need a wholesale review of the tax system. That means everything should be on the table: the GST, company tax, capital gains tax, taxing resources and, certainly, taxing multinationals.

The Treasury's Intergenerational report 2023 highlighted that Australia's population and productivity are projected to grow more slowly over the next 40 years, leading to slower economic growth compared to the past 40 years. An ageing population will also be a challenge. The participation rate is projected to decline, as will average hours per worker. That's going to pose a challenge to how we fund the government services we all rely on. The same Intergenerational report noted that, over the next four decades, the five main spending pressures of health, aged care, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, defence and debt interest payments will rise from around one-third to around one-half of all government spending.

Speaking to the report last year, former Treasury secretary Dr Ken Henry was scathing: 'People who are weighted down with HECS debt, who are going to have to repay a mountain of public debt, who are dealing with the consequences of climate change and who are facing diminishing prospects of ever being able to afford a home of their own, these poor buggers are also going to be the ones who are facing ever-increasing average rates of income tax.' Dr Henry's sentiment gets right to the nub of it. We need urgent reform. The current model is simply not sustainable.

Australia currently has one of the lowest income thresholds in OECD countries for the higher tax brackets. We rely far too heavily on personal income tax to fund our essential services, yet we do nothing to make resource conglomerates pay their fair share. The petroleum resource rent tax, the PRRT, that is currently being proposed by the government is a joke; let's get real about that. It is one of the most lax resource rent tax systems proposed in the world, even including recent reforms—in particular, the reforms the government is proposing. Its failures have been highlighted in recent years as gas companies have reaped windfall profits, yet many projects have not paid any resources tax. Add to this the fact that many of these companies are also not paying any company tax and you're really adding insult to injury.

As I've noted before, foreign owned Arrow Energy, Australia Pacific LNG, Chevron and ExxonMobil didn't pay income tax for seven years, resulting in all profits heading straight offshore. Australians are horrified that these companies can make $138 billion from our natural resources and pay nothing in tax. Australia has one of the weakest resource tax regimes in the world, and one of the most generous to oil and gas companies. In contrast, Norway taxes 78 per cent of export resources profits, delivering a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund. This supports health care, child care and other social measures, all without discouraging investment. The government is shirking its responsibilities to undertake comprehensive tax reform.

I want to raise a concern about how we got here and the way the government has approached its decision-making and then communicated the changes to the stage 3 tax cut package. In the lead-up to the last election the Prime Minister gave a guarantee that the stage 3 tax cuts would stay locked in, as had been legislated. On numerous occasions since the last federal election he repeatedly said there would be no changes. In one interview he is quoted as saying, 'My word is my bond.' I watched all this with misgiving, because all this does is erode trust. You dug the hole yourself, Prime Minister. The government should never have gotten itself into a corner by constantly assuring people that they would not touch the original stage 3 tax cut package.

I'm not opposed to good policy changes being implemented as circumstances require. These tax cuts were legislated as a package of reform. It was always problematic that stage 3 would come into effect five years after being legislated. Honest government would have been upfront with the public. Government policies must adapt to changing circumstances, and circumstances have changed over the last 12 months. This is not something that just happened in December and January of this year. Instead, we saw an abrupt policy change out of the blue and a tax change without an exposure draft and certainly without public consultation.

The question that is out there is, what else is up for sudden change without proper, sober consultation or due policy process? Will the climate change targets be up for renegotiation because there's pressure in some electorates, maybe? Or the commitment to a net zero economy? That's the issue the Prime Minister and the government must now contend with: trust. In the 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer, trust in government leaders has declined to 41 per cent, marking a decline for numerous consecutive years. I feel that the loss of trust can't be overlooked. There's no doubt that cost-of-living pressures are hurting many in the community: prices, power bills, inflation, interest rates and insurance premiums have gone up and are squeezing household budgets. There is no doubt that economic circumstances have been tight for more than 12 months. So I absolutely welcome the support that this provides for many in our community.

I want to thank all the people in Warringah who have reached out to me to let me know how they feel about the government's proposal and who have provided me with their feedback. Many of them are impacted by the change in terms of receiving less, in particular receiving less of a tax cut than they had been planning to receive. It's heartening to see the generosity of so many who want to see those on lower incomes receive more benefit. In fact, more than 80 per cent of those who have corresponded with me are in favour of those tax cuts, with many indicating that they were due to receive more but favour the amendments. And I note that according to Treasury data Warringah has some 82,000 taxpayers who will receive an average tax cut of $2,226 under the new package. It will leave about 56,000 taxpayers better off, which is approximately 68 per cent of taxpayers in the electorate. Treasury analysis also indicates that this will support more women and greater participation in the workforce—all good things.

But I have asked for, and I would welcome, further information or modelling explaining why the settings by the government have been put where they are and how they've been decided on. I appreciate that the income thresholds that are indicated in the bill are significantly above average Australian wages, with incomes of between $137,000 and about $200,000. I would say, though, that often they are not in a class of uber-wealth as would be described by many on the government benches, particularly when one considers exploding house prices in electorates like Warringah.

So I have written to the Treasurer to request clarification of what the modelling was and why they put the 37 per cent tax rate at the threshold of $135,001 and the 45 per cent tax rate at the threshold of $190,001. In the Treasury advice released by the government there's no clear reason that these thresholds have been chosen and what alternative thresholds and rates were considered, if any. Are there clear benefits or drawbacks compared with other thresholds? There are no clear answers from the government on this. There is also no provision in the government legislation to index tax brackets to really address bracket creep, which will impact millions of Australian taxpayers in the coming decade. I've written to the Treasurer with those questions but have not received any response.

Changes to the tax system should be done openly. They should be done with consultation, and I would argue that they should be done with exposure drafts so there is a broad consensus and ability to really assess the benefits and the merits of what is being proposed and where it's being proposed. We also have to be cognisant of the timing of this. We are seeing sittings of parliament till 10 pm on endless nights because of the timing. We know what was already legislated has been done for several years. Accountants and financial professionals have set up their advice and planning based on the original time line and measures. The ATO has set up its calculators. Everything was in place for the system as legislated, and the government repeatedly assured everyone that they would not amend or repeal. Now all the systems and practices put in place to address what was legislated must be overhauled in time for 1 July 2024, assuming this legislation passes. I would argue that it is bad policy to be changing at so late in the piece without the right kind of consultation. We should be approaching a serious issue of tax reform that impacts every Australian taxpayer with due process and care.

I absolutely support simplifying the personal tax brackets and incentivising Australians to work hard, earn more and keep more of their income. We need to move away from so much reliance on personal income tax revenue and make resource giants and multinationals pay their fair share. Focus needs to also be on those suffering the most right now. Whilst this is addressing many in our communities, the most needy are actually not really benefiting much. The reality is that those suffering the most are the poorest in our community. They're those on JobSeeker, student allowance and age pensions. They won't be benefiting much from this package. So, if the government is really committed to helping those who are doing it tough and they're not just out for votes because of the popular appeal of this policy, then they would be committed to increasing payments such as JobSeeker to ensure that it is above the poverty line, alongside increasing other support payments.

The detail of the bill—for many, there's been a lot of discussion, and I encourage residents of Warringah to go to the website. We will be putting up the detail in relation to the stage 3 tax cuts. The most important aspect is that essentially what was passed in 2019 has been repealed and has been replaced completely with new personal tax rates, which will bring the following brackets into effect. The bill will change the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent for those earning between $18,200 and $45,000. This is welcome for young people in particular. It will change the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent for those earning between $45,001 to $135,000. It will increase the threshold above which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $120,001 to $135,001. It will increase the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,001 to $190,001, noting though that it was legislated to be at $200,001, so it's really an increase in tax for that bracket. That means that all taxpayers essentially earning around less than $150,000 a year will receive a larger tax cut than they would have done under the original stage 3 package, while those earning more will receive a lower tax cut. The concern, again, is that there is no provision for indexation, and so with bracket creep what we will see is more and more people getting less of that benefit.

Despite my concerns, I'm absolutely in support, and I thank again all the people from Warringah who have written to me to let me know their thoughts. But I urge the government to think about trust and integrity and to bring the Australian people along with them when they are considering major policy changes. At the end of the day, whilst this may have gone down well, it raises the spectre of the question of what will be next. Trust in government once lost is lost, I think, forever. So, for me, there is that question. I must say that the Prime Minister, I think, on a number of occasions has identified his word as his bond, but that ultimately cannot be believed. When I look at other significant policy areas, such as climate change, energy, commitments in relation to net zero and commitments to a local issue like PEP11, which have still not been implemented—the Prime Minister promised that it would be dead, yet it is not—the question of trust and integrity will forever be there.

There is no doubt that Australians have weathered a turbulent time over the last five years. A once-in-a-century pandemic, persistent inflation, high interest rates, two conflicts and global uncertainty have put Australians under more sustained cost-of-living pressures. When tax cuts were legislated under the previous government five years ago, our economy looked quite different. Such a big change in our economy needs a different response, a better response. Good governments do the right thing for the right reasons. Good governments prioritise people ahead of politics. Australians have told us that they are under pressure. They have told us that they need their government to act. Action is what this bill will deliver, and it delivers to every single taxpayer. Young Australians are better off. Older Australians are better off. Women are better off. Nurses, teachers and aged-care workers are some of those most likely to benefit. More than 95 per cent of those workers across Australia are getting a bigger tax cut.

It's communities like those in my electorate of Barton that need and deserve Labor's tax cuts. Constituents in my electorate have told me that cuts as they were legislated five years ago are not going to work for them. Organisations caring for our local communities have told me more people are coming to them for help. They've told me that the government needs to respond to the pressure Middle Australia is under. The government has heard these messages from Barton and communities across Australia loud and clear. That's why Labor's tax cuts mean that every Australian taxpayer—every single taxpayer—will receive a tax cut this year. In the electorate of Barton, 85 per cent of taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut than under the previous government.

I want to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, what tax cuts will really mean in communities like Barton's. Ninety per cent of women taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut with Labor's tax cuts. For a schoolteacher at one of our wonderful local schools, it will be an average of $2,429. For a registered nurse at the beginning of her career at St George Hospital, it will be a tax cut of $1,554. Childcare, aged-care, and disability-care workers will benefit too.

For some here in this place, the first instinct was to go straight to politics. They made it clear their hearts weren't really in tax cuts for Middle Australia. They have said these numbers don't seem like much of a difference. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition even said that they would roll these changes back, making 11.5 million Australians pay more in tax. But Australians tell us what kind of difference this will make. It's meaningful cost-of-living relief delivered in a responsible way that doesn't add to inflationary pressures and that lays the foundation for a stronger and more resilient economy.

Cutting taxes for Middle Australia is a central part of our economic plan, but Labor's tax cuts proposed in this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, are just one way in which we are providing important cost-of-living relief to families across Australia. Labor is focused on making the essentials more affordable for everyone. An additional 360,000 GP visits nationally were bulk-billed in the last two months, saving Australians $15 million. In my community of Barton, residents have already saved nearly $2 million on cheaper medicines because of our government. We've also delivered cheaper child care. Affordable high-quality child care is essential to boosting the participation of women in the workforce. It also prepares our children for success at school right through to year 12 and further education. The ACCC has found that, since their introduction in July 2023, boosts to subsidies and funding have meant that prices of early childhood education have dropped on average by 11 per cent across the country. The government is also supporting parents and children before they even go to preschool. From 2026 paid parental leave will increase to six months. This is the biggest expansion of paid parental leave since Labor introduced it when we were last in government. We've also taken action on the cost of living through electricity bill relief. From 31 July last year, our electricity bill relief has taken $125 off the power bills of New South Wales residents each quarter. That's vital support for millions of families, pensioners and concession card holders.

Energy bill relief, paid parental leave, more affordable child care, cheaper medicines, boosting bulk-billing and tax cuts to every taxpayer—that is how Labor is acting on the cost of living. The most recent inflation figures show a welcome moderation, but it's still too high. Treasury advice is clear that Labor's tax cuts will not add to inflationary pressures, because they are broadly revenue neutral. Stakeholders from the community sector, unions, economic experts and academics agree that Labor's tax cuts are a sensible response to a rapidly changing economic situation. This package of tax cuts is also a response to what Australians have been telling their government and their representatives to do about their concerns about cost of living and fairness and what aspiration actually means. Every Australian aspires for more for themselves and their children—not just to get by but to thrive. Ensuring that every taxpayer takes home more each week recognises that aspiration should not only be for those who are already doing well. Australia faces so many challenges. When good governments see problems, they listen and they act, and we have. Putting people above politics is about taking the best advice from experts. It's about listening to Australians, hearing about the problems they face. Those Australians rely on us to work for them, to respond to changing circumstances. I am proud to be part of a government that is doing exactly that—doing the right thing at the right time. I am pleased to support the government bill and I look forward to 1 July, when every taxpayer in the electorate of Barton will get a tax cut.

It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. It has taken 18 months of coalition warnings and Australians crying out for help, but the message seems to have finally sunk in for the Treasurer and the Prime Minister: Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis. It may have occurred to them once they saw the national figures which show that, over the past 18 months, groceries are up by over nine per cent, housing is up by over 12 per cent, electricity has gone through the roof for many and is now up by at least 18 per cent, insurance costs have risen by 22 per cent and gas is up an incredible 27 per cent. Inflation remains stubbornly higher than in other developed nations. These are incredibly difficult conditions for ordinary Australians, and the pressures that we see in the households across the country are reflecting this. More and more Australians are being forced to use what money they have saved just to stay afloat, and this was confirmed by the Reserve Bank governor in hearings last Friday.

You would have thought these figures would have caused concern for the Treasurer and the Prime Minister long before now and that they would actually take the time and effort to produce a serious long-term economic plan to address these issues. But what have we seen? Another broken promise. They could have provided the full tax reform package that was legislated as stage 3 and was intended to address the creeping problem of bracket creep and the exact economic conditions which exacerbate the issue in a high inflation environment, but they chose to do something else. They chose instead to remove the low- and middle-income tax offset rather than extend it, a $1,500 loss for many families across my electorate of Forde. They could have taken action last year rather than waiting until now. Instead, they held back from outlining any meaningful cost-of-living relief through last year's budget and failed to outline an economic agenda that works for the Australian people. As I've said before in this place, my electorate of Forde has many hardworking Australians from a wide range of occupations. They have been screaming out for this government, the Labor government, to act on this cost-of-living crisis. When the government had the opportunity to do something to alleviate this burden in the last budget, they did nothing. They spent all of 2023 ignoring these problems and being distracted by a $450 million failed referendum, but in the morning leading up to a by-election they have gone: 'Oh dear! Now we need to do something.' In their haste to right their political fortunes, the Labor government have taken the easy option of breaking another promise instead of implementing a clear and coherent economic agenda.

We've seen over the past couple of weeks a multitude of those opposite willing to get in front of a television camera and tell Australians how great these changes are and how much they'll help reduce these cost-of-living pressures. I say to those opposite that it only tells part of the story and fails to take into account a much broader range of issues that are facing Australians. I might reflect on some of those issues.

Real net disposable income per person has fallen by 8.6 per cent across this 18-month period. For an average income earner, this is a decline in take-home pay of around $8,000 over the course of the year. We see that with these changes to the stage 3 tax cut package an average worker will be better off by some $15 a week, yet $8,000 a year equates to about $150 a week. So, in net terms Australians on average incomes are still $135 a week worse off under this government, and yet we've got those opposite crowing about their economic success and how they're relieving the cost-of-living pressures for everyday Australians. Well, they come from a different world to the one from which I do. This $15-a-week saving is less than one per cent of the average annual wage and returns just 10c in every dollar people have lost through the cost-of-living pressures through this Labor government's first 18 months in office.

Over the course of this second reading debate I have heard multiple members on the other side ringing off these dollar savings amounts. But let's look at some of the other things that have been missed in this discussion. If we go back to the broken promises of this government, of which this one is just the latest: a $275 reduction in energy prices—well, that's not materialised; no changes to superannuation taxes—well, that has gone by the wayside; an increase in real wages—no, we haven't seen that; no changes to franking credits—well, that's gone by the wayside as well; cheaper mortgages—no. On average, in my electorate, people are paying an extra $24,000 a year just in extra interest on their mortgage, let alone the capital component on top of that, all from after-tax income. And no changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. As the Prime Minister said, his word is his bond. Well, that's obviously not worth particularly much.

If I look directly at an example of some of the employees and occupations in my electorate, a truck driver in Forde on the average wage will receive an $804 tax cut. However, when combined with their real income drop, they will be roughly $7,200 a year worse off. I know those opposite, in various answers to questions in question time, are waxing lyrical about the various occupations across the country and the tax savings they will achieve. But they never address the full picture. This is what the Australian people should be very, very careful about. It is not what Labor says; it is what Labor does that they need to watch out for, because nine times out of 10 they are two very, very different things, and Australians are paying the price for that right now.

An electrician in Forde can thank this government for being $7,200 a year worse off as well, even with these changes. A concreter in Forde will find their $15 a week tax cut will still see them $138 a year worse off under this government's economic plan. A receptionist working in one of the many small professional services businesses in my electorate will be some $238 worse off this year because they will lose the low- and middle-income tax offset, even taking into account these changes.

I have yet to touch on the impact of the government's failed economic policies on small to medium businesses in my electorate. If we think that household electricity costs have gone up by some 18 to 20 per cent, for many small to medium businesses their electricity and gas costs have gone up significantly more than that—significantly more. Many of those small to medium businesses rent their premises and many of those lease increases are tied to CPI, to inflation. So their rents haven't gone up by three per cent, unlike some of the big retailers in major shopping centres; they have gone up six, seven, eight per cent. Now the interest costs for their overdrafts have also gone up significantly more than household borrowing costs. Who pays for all of those cost increases? Households and consumers.

So once again the government has failed to have a detailed economic plan which takes into account all of those issues that flow right through our economy. I know the member for Wright is here in the chamber. He has a very significant agricultural base in his electorate. How many of those producers of agricultural products are struggling to make ends meet because of their rising input costs, including the cost of water, electricity and fertiliser? That is feeding directly into the cost-of-living pressures that our Australian households are feeling. What has the government done to address any of those issues? Zero—nothing.

They were all told it was going to be easier.

As the member for Wright just said, they were all told it was going to be easier. Sadly, that is very, very far from the case. It is not easier. It is getting tougher each and every day. The government has no answers and is completely out of credibility in this space.

We welcome the reduction in taxes for people on lower to middle incomes because we're a party of lower taxes. We've always prided ourselves on having a lower tax environment, and that was exactly the purpose of the three stages of tax cuts. This government has presided over a 27 per cent increase in personal income tax receipts in its time in government. The coalition, should it be returned to government, will focus on delivering lower, simpler, fairer taxes. We will look at fighting bracket creep to enshrine aspiration in our tax system, not just for households but for business.

I've spoken to a number of businesses of late, including manufacturing businesses—and it's interesting to see the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources in the chamber—who are talking about shutting their manufacturing processes here in Australia and moving them offshore. They'll keep their R&D here, but they've said to me it is just too hard and just too difficult. One of the key drivers of costs for them is electricity, but the increase in our electricity costs is, in part, a direct result of government policy. On the one hand you have the Treasurer saying, 'We need to reduce taxes to deal with the cost-of-living issues,' yet on the other hand we have the Minister for Climate Change and Energy driving up living costs by virtue of government policies in the space of energy. Energy goes into every single part of our economy. Until the government is prepared to deal with those issues, we will not see a reduction in the overall cost of living for people. As a businessperson said to me recently: 'If I think costs are going to continue to go up, I'm going to put my prices up in preparation for those costs going up. I'm going to insulate my business.' That is the mindset business is in today. I don't see that any of the government policies currently proposed are going to do anything to address those issues.

On this side, we want to reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead and to unite Australians rather than pit people against each other. Whilst the coalition is supporting this bill, it is clear that these changes do nothing in the long term to provide relief—or they only provide relief for a fraction of the cost-of-living burden that Australians have incurred. The Prime Minister, who campaigned on integrity and transparency and even uttered the phrase, 'My word is my bond,' can no longer be trusted by the Australian people.

The Albanese government started this year with great news for every single taxpayer in Australia: every taxpayer gets a tax cut. All 13.6 million taxpayers will be getting a tax cut as of 1 July. Labor's tax cuts under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 deliver more relief to more people in a way that is fiscally responsible and doesn't add to inflationary pressures. These new tax cuts are designed to provide bigger tax cuts for middle Australia to help with the cost of living, while also making our tax system fairer—because it's not only tax relief; it's also tax reform. Our tax cuts are good for Middle Australia, good for Australian families, good for women, good for young people and good for low-income workers. Our tax cuts are good for helping with cost-of-living pressures for every single taxpayer, our tax cuts are good for labour supply, our tax cuts are good for tackling bracket creep and our tax cuts are good for the economy.

It is the job of an Australian government to do the right thing for Australians and for the economy, according to the economic realities of the time, and that is exactly what we're doing. The Albanese Labor government is introducing these changes because it recognises the economic realities of 2024. Australians are under pressure right now, and Australians deserve a tax plan that responds to the challenges they are facing. When the coalition's stage 3 tax plan was legislated five years ago, the world was a very different place. It was before a once-in-100-year pandemic, worldwide persistent inflation, higher interest rates, two overseas conflicts impacting supply chains and prices, and global uncertainty. These things have put Australians under more sustained cost-of-living pressure. When the circumstances change, changing policy is the responsible thing to do.

Our overarching responsibility is to consider what is the best thing for Australians now, and cutting taxes for Middle Australia is a central part of our economic plan, but only one part. It sits alongside getting wages moving again, bringing inflation under control, driving fairer prices for Australian consumers and providing important cost-of-living relief such as energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, higher income support payments and the biggest boost in rental assistance for 30 years.

Labor's tax cuts will make a real difference for the 13.6 million Australian taxpayers who will receive a tax cut. That's every Australian taxpayer, with no taxpayer left behind and no taxpayer ignored. This is 2.9 million more taxpayers than would have benefited from the stage 3 tax plan from five years ago. It means that 11.5 million taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut. That's 84 per cent of all Australian taxpayers better off under this plan. In my electorate of Boothby, the number is 85 per cent of taxpayers better off under this plan. Ninety per cent of women are better off under the tax plan. Ninety-six per cent of young people under the age of 29 will be better off under this plan. Gen Z are among the biggest beneficiaries of this tax change, because they were ignored under the previous plan of the Liberal and National parties.

Under Labor's tax plan, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut. Previously, they got nothing. This will significantly boost the take-home pay of Australians on modest incomes and people working part time. Under the coalition's plan, taxpayers earning under $45,000 got nothing. An Australian taxpayer earning the average wage, around $73,000, will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year, which is around $29 a week. That's more than double what they would have got under the coalition's plan. That's nurses, teachers, truckies, and so many more Australian workers who are the absolute backbone of our economy and are earning around the average wage. For an Australian family on an average household income of $130,000, with, say, one partner earning $80,000 and the other around $50,000, their combined tax cut will be over $2,600, which is about $50 a week and $1,600 more than they would have got under the Liberal and National parties' plan.

But these are not just short-term gains. Labor's tax plan also meaningfully addresses bracket creep in a way that, as Treasury has modelled, better addresses bracket creep than the opposition's stage 3 tax cuts ever would have. The government's changes deliver a better and more progressive tax system and address bracket creep more evenly. Our plan returns bracket creep for all taxpayers and does more to reduce the impact on those most burdened by it. By dropping two tax rates and lifting two thresholds, we are giving everyone a tax cut, providing $359 billion in help with the cost of living and returning the most bracket creep where we can do the most good for Middle Australia. As a result, the average taxpayer will pay $21,635 less income tax over the next decade.

And of course it's also good for the economy. Labour shortage is one of the issues I heard about from businesses large and small during the last election, and it's something this government is taking seriously. Treasury estimates that our changes will increase labour supply by around 930,000 hours per week. That is more than double the labour supply impact of the former coalition government's plan. This is driven by increases in hours worked and participation of women with taxable income between $20,000 and $75,000. Parents, particularly women with young children, will be meaningfully supported to return to work under the government's changes through increases to their take-home pay.

The really critical consideration in making this change and in all the cost-of-living relief we've provided over the past year is to ensure that what we do is not inflationary. The advice from Treasury is clear that our tax cuts will not add to inflationary pressures, because they are broadly revenue neutral. The most recent inflation figures show a welcome moderation. It's still too high, but it is moderating, and Treasury is clear that our tax plan will not impact their forecasts and timing for inflation to return to the target band. The Albanese government is providing meaningful cost-of-living relief in a responsible way that doesn't add inflationary pressures while laying the foundations for a stronger and more resilient economy.

So, what it is actually going to change? From 1 July this year the government will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent, reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent, increase the threshold above which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $120,000 to $135,000, and increase the threshold above with the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $119,000. The 45 per cent tax threshold will be lifted on 1 July for the first time since Labor was last in office. All 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut from 1 July onwards. The government's tax cuts will return bracket creep and lower average tax rates for all Australian taxpayers, and this is a great-news story.

What is the Liberal-National opposition's position on this? Well, the hint is in the name: they oppose it. The deputy opposition leader, prior to even having the detail of the bill, said they would roll the changes back. When asked if the opposition would roll back Labor's tax cuts, she said, 'Well, this is our position; this is absolutely our opposition'—absolutely. This means they will make 11.5 million Australians pay more tax—an interesting position to take, considering that the opposition's seats are some of the biggest winners from this change. But the Liberals and the Nationals have made it clear that they do not want these tax cuts for Middle Australia. I know they voted against every other form of cost-of-living relief as well. But here they are directly against the tax changes that will put more money in the pockets of their own constituents.

Our tax cuts come on top of billions of dollars in targeted and responsible cost-of-living relief that's been rolled out, including electricity bill relief, cheaper child care which resulted in an average 11 per cent drop in childcare fees across Australia, increased rent assistance, tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentive which resulted in more bulk-billing GPs, cheaper medicines through the drop in prescription payments and 60 day dispensing, a boost in income support payments, expansion of eligibility criteria for the single-parent payment and the JobSeeker supplement for older workers, fee-free TAFE training, more social and affordable homes, and expanded paid parental leave. We are creating jobs and getting wages moving again.

The Labor government's tax cuts have been very welcome across my electorate. It's a great-news story: 100 per cent of taxpayers will get a tax cut, 85 per cent of Boothby taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut, 90 per cent of women taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut and 96 per cent of young taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut. Labor is the government of higher wages and lower taxes. We want you to earn more, we want you to be paid fairly for the hours you work and we want you to keep more of what you earn in your own pocket. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise today to, first of all, spell out that it doesn't matter whether you now have to reconcile yourself to why a promise can be broken; the fact is you broke it. That means that, when people go to an election, they look for honesty and authenticity in what is described to them as to what's going to happen if a certain government is elected. If you then subsequently decide to change, for whatever reason it is, you've broken your promise. One would suggest that what you should do, if you're so moved by wanting to make a change, is honour your promise and then, in addition, take a further legislative change. You can't just go up to any person on the street and say, 'I owed you $1,000, but I met another person and now I'm deciding only to pay you $450 because I've been moved to decide to pay you less.' What you should say is, 'Here's your $1,000 and now I have to address the person down the street who is also in need.' That is generally how promises work.

But it is such a great trick; it's such a great parlour game. Once you've taken the money away and spent it somewhere else, you can't go back and take it off people. That is logical. Yes, it's a great parlour game and, yes, it's so clever, but, ultimately, that's all that people remember—they never thank you for the tax cut, but they remember that you broke your promise. That's precisely what's happened here. Of course you can say to people: 'You've got more money than you had before. What do you think about that?' They'll say, 'That's a great idea!' Find any one person who's cognisant of what's happening in their wallet and say to them, 'How do you feel about having more money in your wallet?' and it'll be a no-brainer, but that does not give you an excuse to break your promise.

In National Party seats, we have other issues that are at the forefront. We have a lot of people who are poor. The breakdown of where people are is that the teal seats are the wealthiest, then the Greens seats, then the Liberal seats and then the Labor seats. We look after the poorest. We look after the people who are really doing it tough in the weatherboard and iron. That's who we look after. Yes, there are people who are very comfortable, and good luck and God bless them, but the highest proportion of poor people are in our seats. If they're earning less than $40,000, what is proposed here will make no difference at all because they hardly pay any tax. We increased, in stage 1, the low-income offset so that basically they're tax-free.

How do you help those people? And, by gosh, they're really doing it tough. How do you help them? They have second-hand cars. In some villages out in these areas there are no police, there are no doctors, the houses are falling to pieces and there's no public sewerage. This is the life they live in. And they're living that life around me. There are people who are 100 per cent—100 per cent!—zero emission. Do you know why? They have no power. That is why they have zero emissions. There is no power. Why? Because they can't afford it. I remember taking people into the back streets of some of the villages around me. They'd say, 'No-one could possibly live in that house,' and I'd say, 'Well, explain to me why there's smoke coming out of the chimney in the middle of winter.' It's why we have a strong view on certain issues, on policy. One of the biggest issues for them is power prices. If you take away their power, you drive them into absolute hard poverty.

The other day, in a reconfiguration which is so well-meaning but so physically, by reason of physics, crazy, we had Loy Yang go offline. Yes, they had a storm, but storms happen all the time. We haven't had storms by reason of the differentiation in what's happening in the actual power grid that knocked out a major power station, or a large part of a major power station. The price of power per megawatt went up to more than $16,000. It used to be around $35 or $40. It doesn't matter what we think, that then flows through all the way back to the weatherboard and iron. What happens to them is they cannot pay their power bill. Now we have record numbers of people who are no longer on the grid, and this has to be addressed. If you really want to look after people who are doing it tough, you go to one of the core issues in their lives—their power bill, their grocery bill, their capacity to pay for a dentist and the fact that they've got a second-hand car. If you start changing fuel standards and saying, 'This and that will happen,' that's all well and good where people have money. But, where they don't have money, they can't afford the car they've got. Every time they go to get groceries, they can't go to a corner store, because there is no corner store. If there is, it's incredibly expensive. Their trip to the major supermarket takes fuel, and everything they do is more expensive. You've got to go to the fundamentals of their lives and address those.

That's the role of the Nationals and the members around here who live it—and I know that includes the member for Cowper, because his electorate is right up against mine. We had a road between us. It just disappeared. It just went. Imagine that in an urban environment. Imagine that one of your major connecting roads just goes after a flood. It's years later, and it hasn't been put back. This is the sort of life that we've got. What happens to the people on that road? There are people who live there. How does it work for them? Just to give you an example, we had a bridge in our area, and it went out for three years. That's three years without a bridge on the major connecting road. These are the realities that we deal with.

Each one of these is a decision you've got to really focus on. How do you help people who earn below $40,000 a year? I might just note that, if you are earning over $135,000 a year—or about $139,000 with increments, but I won't go into the nuances of it—you are actually getting less money after these tax changes. On the other side, there'll be a lot of people on $139,000 who would say, 'I'm going alright, but I'm not super rich.' For my part, I'm looking after people under $40,000. This became accentuated yesterday at two o'clock, when Loy Yang went out. Hazelwood is gone, and they said it wouldn't have an effect. It had a massive effect. Liddell is gone, and they said it wouldn't have an effect. It had a massive effect. Now Loy Yang is under threat, and they're talking about closing down other baseload power generators. We've seen that intermittent power in the form that is rolling out now does not do the job. It's alright if power is a little bit of your life and expense, but it's absolutely devastating if it's major.

On the other side are groceries. For politicians in regional areas, it's said that a lot of your politics is done in the pub. That's romanticising it a bit. But I'll tell you that talking to people is done in the supermarket. Sidle up beside someone who's trying to pay for their grocery bills, and just have a look. Do you know what the humiliation is like when the card says, 'Declined; see issuer for details'? Do you know how humiliating that is for people? Do you know all the statements that are made? 'There must be a mistake' or 'A payment must have come out.' These are true stories. In my area, I was talking to one of my constituents, and she said she was vegetarian. I thought, 'Well, that's good.' Then she put the addendum on it: 'It's not because I want to be. It's because I can't afford meat.'

People think this is not happening in Australia. It is happening in Australia. I'm glad we've got an ACCC inquiry. That's important, but I'll tell you something that we've sort of been aware of for years. Big supermarkets are supported by big unions so they can make big profits. Because of big unions that work with big supermarkets, the supermarkets have big political power. They come close to us on our side too. Make no mistake about that. I'm not saying that we are without fault on this one. It absolutely exists on our side as well. These people are mercenary. They don't care how they do it, as long as, at the end of the day, they're looked after. They will feign virtue so that you keep your eye off them, and they will do what they've got to do. We've got to ask a serious question: how many years have we been dealing with this, and how far have we progressed? How far have we managed to get a sword of Damocles so that these people act fairly? What have we actually done? Is it time we think about it, look at other countries, such as the United States, Canada and England, and ask: 'What do those countries do? How do they go about it? What are we missing here?' I pose that question because, to the people in the big supermarkets: I know you're watching, and I know you know exactly what I am talking about. This is another issue that has to be looked at.

So we've got power prices and grocery prices, and then we've got fuel. Fuel is another one. Without fuel, you're going nowhere. In a regional area, if someone in your house has a stroke or a heart attack and you haven't got fuel in the car, they're dead. You just can't get to the hospital. Remember, we don't have hospitals. In fact, we do have some hospitals but—I kid you not—they've got no doctors into them. If the nurse falls over, you have to find another hospital, because the hospital hasn't got a doctor. The problem we've got in Australia is that we're not building new refineries; we're closing them down. And the jobs for people in blue-collar work, like jobs at aluminium smelters—not in my area—are closing down. The blue-collar manufacturing jobs that these people do, because they haven't been to university, are just being taken away. What we have now in our area is contractors on farms—fencing contractors, mustering contractors, people trying to make sure that they can make a buck. But, in terms of substantive jobs, because power prices have gone up we have become uncompetitive with overseas countries.

The best way to deal with the cost of living is to have more cash. That really helps with the cost of living. But we can't propose a strategic advantage by saying we're going to have the wages of India or Bangladesh. That would be outrageous. Commodities are at a global price, so there is no strategic advantage there. So you've got to look for other areas where you have a strategic advantage. The one we had in the past was power prices. Now that's gone. Of course, because that has gone your manufacturing capacity is lost.

The government have to be able to address—it's especially pertinent today because of Loy Yang—exactly what they intend to do, not their mythical desires and what they believe, in a sort of Peter Pan economics, will happen in the future. They have to actually address what they're going to do about fixing the power crisis—and we now have a power crisis. If you can't fix the power crisis, you've got no hope of fixing the cost of living. What you do to tax rates—whether you turn the dial backwards or forwards—will make absolutely no difference to what's happening in the lives of people who are in the $0- to $40,000-a-year bracket.

An honourable member interjecting—

Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence.

What we are seeing at the moment is precisely that.

I want to go through some other items. In our area, getting kids to school means that mothers have to drive them, because we don't have bus services. The mothers have to drive them, to be quite frank, because the guy may be working in another job having to bring money in—or the guy may be at home. To be honest, that's not as much, obviously. But, because they have to drive, they can't have a job. They don't have a job because their whole day is occupied in driving the kids to school and picking them up from school and driving them home.

An honourable member interjecting—

I just said that there are also fathers. You have the opportunity of two-income families, and we don't.

It's 2024, Barnaby!

I'll take the interjection. If it's 2024, why don't you give us the same services that you have in your 2024 world in your urban environment? Why don't we get the child care? Why don't we get the health care? Why don't we get the police service?

Please address yourself through the Speaker.

Why don't we get those? Why don't we get them? Why don't we get those services? Why aren't you addressing those services in this cost-of-living debate? Why aren't you talking about how you're going to get buses out to regional areas? Why don't you talk about how you're going to get doctors into regional areas?

Order! The member for New England, address yourself through the Speaker.

Okay. Why don't we have a discussion about why we can't get obstetrics? Why don't we have a discussion about why we can't get aged care? There are a lot of discussions to be had, if you want to talk about 2024, about how your life in urban Australia, in the inner suburbs, is completely and utterly distracted and different to the life that we have to live. And the infuriation we have is that we hear comments just like that, scoring a cheap political point and being completely ignorant to the realities of the lives of the people who are actually doing it really tough in this nation.

I'm pleased to speak in favour of Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. We just heard from a fellow who was Deputy Prime Minister of Australia not once but twice—the sequel no-one wanted! He stood at the dispatch box having been part of a government for the best part of a decade, including twice being Deputy Prime Minister, and spoke about how the electorate that he represents and the electorates that the National Party represents don't have services, don't have infrastructure and don't have support. At the same time, those opposite have gone out there and supported tax cuts which overwhelmingly benefited people in the inner cities, not in regional Australia.

Our tax cuts are aimed squarely at regional Australia and the outer suburbs. Our tax cuts are aimed squarely at Middle Australia. Our tax cuts are aimed squarely at ensuring that people are not left behind. Our tax cuts, unlike the ones that those opposite propose, deliver for all 13.6 million taxpayers, not just some. The former Deputy Prime Minister is right that electorates like his have a lower average wage compared with an electorate like mine. Do you know what people who are on high incomes in my electorate are telling me? They are telling me that our tax cuts are fairer. They understand that a good society means not leaving people behind. They understand that people on average wages—Middle Australia—will get double the tax cut that they were going to get under the previous system.

A shop assistant on $32,000 will get a tax cut of $414. They were going to get nothing. A nurse on $76,000 will get a tax cut of over $1,500. A teacher on $80,000 will get a tax cut of $1,679. A police officer on $110,000 will get a tax cut of $2,429. An IT manager on $160,000 will get a tax cut of $3,729. Every politician will get a tax cut of 4½ thousand dollars. We have made sure that no matter what income you are on, right through the income scale, you will get a significant tax cut compared with your existing income. We understand that people who are on lower than $45,000 do deserve a tax cut, and lowering the rate from 19 per cent to 16 per cent will flow right through the income scales. But we also understand that people right through those income scales are deserving of support, which is why we are lifting the threshold at which 37 per cent comes in from $120,000 to $135,000 and we are lifting the top marginal tax rate from $180,000 to $190,000. That is the first increase in that threshold since 2008, since the Labor Party last occupied the front benches here.

Those opposite sat here for 10 years and did nothing about it. It took a Labor government last time, and it's taken a Labor government this time, to address this issue. In fact, what they did the last time they were in office, after the 2013 election, was that, having said absolutely nothing beforehand, they introduced a so-called deficit levy on high-income earners, an additional tax which lifted up that top rate to the highest it has been in recent times. At the same time, they made cuts to health, cuts to education, cuts to the ABC and cuts to services. At the same time, the bloke who now wants to be Prime Minister came in as health minister and introduced a GP tax, or tried to—a tax on every visit to the doctor. He also tried to introduce a tax for every time people ended up at an emergency department, at the same time he was ripping $50 billion out of the healthcare system. There was no mention of that before the election.

What we have done here is to respond to the needs of our changing economy. Since five years ago, when the Morrison tax plan was put in place, there's been a global pandemic that had a long tail to it, there have been two conflicts—in Russia, with its invasion of Ukraine, and in the Middle East—and there has been global inflation, which has had an impact. Treasury and the Reserve Bank have indicated that those things have had a disproportionate impact on low- and middle-income Australians, and that's why we made not an easy decision but the right decision, done for the right reasons at the right time, to go to the National Press Club, having gone through all of our processes—the ERC, the cabinet, the ministry and our full caucus—and say: 'We are changing our position, and this is why. It's because people are doing it tough, and we want to do everything we can to provide support for the cost of living.'

This comes after the other measures that we've put in place: our energy price relief plan, our cheaper medicines, our fee-free TAFE, our cheaper child care. It comes on top of the measures that we've put in place to increase real wages—which have had an impact, with real wages increasing for two quarters in a row—including our support for an increase in the minimum wage in the last two national wage cases, which has had a significant impact on low-income earners. It comes on top of the 15 per cent increase in wages for the aged-care sector, in accordance with the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission. If you're an aged-care worker you've benefited from the increase in your wage to make sure that you earn more, and now you'll benefit from paying less tax on that increased amount.

Our approach has been to make sure that we deliver for working Australians, and indeed our package means that 84 per cent of taxpayers will be better off than they would have been had this legislation not been given support: 90 per cent of women, 98 per cent of young people, and overwhelmingly people in regional Australia. That is why the National Party member—the bloke elected leader not once but twice—has just come in here and gone on about how tough people do it in regional Australia. How about if they had a political party that stood up for them? The National Party won't, but we on this side of the House, the Labor Party, will stand up for people in regional Australia, which is what we are doing.

It is crystal clear that every taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut, and that's what this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, will do. We want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. The coalition want people to work longer for less. A modest position that was carried just last week in this parliament, to allow for workers not to be punished for being on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is going to be overturned by those opposite. The truth is that, as technology has changed the nature of work, legislation must change with it. The government must respond to these changes in work practices. They won't interfere with any commonsense approach to these issues, which is why the right to disconnect is part of enterprise bargaining and a range of arrangements put in place between employers and employees. That's why the Fair Work Commission, under the legislation, will have a commonsense approach, essentially, to these issues. We know there are times when it's entirely appropriate for a worker to be contacted out of hours. What those opposite want, though, once again, is to just fail to move with the times. They just want the world to stop so they can get off. Well, they have got off—they've got off any responsibility from acting in a way that looks after working people and looks after their constituents.

Our position is also made possible by the fact that we have been fiscally responsible. It is what has given us the capacity to put in place those changes in child care and in health care, including the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive in Medicare, and our energy price relief plan that, all the indications are, put a significant downward pressure on inflation. We've put in place those measures whilst delivering the first surplus in 15 years and we've turned a $78 billion deficit into a $22 billion surplus, something that those opposite were never capable of doing.

They committed to having a position going forward in this parliament that would have left people behind and they have voted against all those cost-of-living measures, and now what we see is that they don't talk about it anymore. I may as well take a page out of the Bob Carr book of parliamentary leadership and bring a novel into question time, because we don't get any questions about the cost of living anymore. They never ask. They are completely distracted from any issue. They haven't put any other proposals. What they have done on tax—

If I knew this bloke's seat, I could comment back, but I'm not sure who he is, Mr Speaker!

Order! The Prime Minister will ignore the member for O'Connor's interjections.

Thank you for that assistance, Mr Speaker. They stood up last weekend and they did a press conference. Having said that they would oppose and fight our tax cuts, they said they would roll them back absolutely—remember the words of the deputy leader? They then stood up and said: 'Well, no. Actually, we're opposed to it, but we're going to vote for it.' Then they said, 'But we're going to have our own tax plan,' and I thought, 'Beauty! Here we go! They're going to come up with a policy.' What was it? Nothing. Crickets. There was no alternative plan. They have an opportunity, of course, in the consideration in detail on this legislation to put forward some alternatives, and we'll wait and see what comes out of that. They have never had an idea to help Middle Australia. They are just concerned with, and their idea of aspiration is, people like themselves. It's people who have been pretty successful in life. That's their idea of aspiration.

What we on this side of the House understand is that every Australian aspires to a better future for themselves and their children. We will put in place measures that help them to achieve that better future for themselves and their children. That's what these tax cuts are about. Peter Dutton, as Leader of the Opposition, and those opposite just want people to work longer for less. That's the great divide in Australian politics. We want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. They want people to work longer for less.

I am pleased to rise to speak on the stage 3 amended cuts, which, as we know, will amount to about, on average, $804 per year or about $67 a month. If anyone had been listening to these speeches over the past couple of days they would think there were stories of two different worlds: on that side, a utopian existence where everybody is better off over the past two years; the promised land has been delivered. On this side: the reality of what is actually happening.

I was speaking to a young fellow the other day—in fact, my nephew, Matt. He is a good young fellow living in Newcastle who works hard, who has saved a deposit over many years for a house. He was looking for my guidance. Having listened to what has been put forward, the submissions by Labor—if you were to believe them—my advice would be buy in a Labor seat, because everything is better in a Labor seat. I have not heard one thing about the reality of what is happening, not one submission by Labor that the average person is paying $22,000 more in interest on their mortgage—$22,000! That is reality. Not one person across that floor made that submission. That is after tax on an average mortgage. Where does somebody find that?

You must have a big mortgage.

I take the interjection from across the floor: 'You must have a big mortgage.' Yes, people do. And I'm sure, to the member who made the interjection, somebody has a mortgage like that in your seat and you make a joke out of it—through you, Deputy Chair. These people are real, yet those opposite are talking about that. We're talking about that in our electorates. Where do you find an extra $22,000 a year when you are on an average income in my electorate of $65,000 a year before tax? The reality is you have to find a second job to cover your mortgage, and that is exactly what people are doing. That is exactly what people are facing.

Then you look at the groceries. I'm sure everyone in the chamber will be interested to know I do the shopping in my household. I enjoy it. I love it. I love comparing prices. I love to see what is on the shelf. I enjoy cooking. So every fortnight I prepare the list for the fortnight, do the meal plan for the budget, just like many people across Australia. Over the past 18 months to two years, my bill has gone up by at least 30 per cent. So if my bill has gone up 30 per cent—and we are not extravagant; we still have tuna bake Thursdays—it means everybody else's bill has gone up 30 per cent, but have we heard that from across the floor? No. Everything is rosy. There is not that cost-of-living crisis in the supermarkets. And what are the government going to do now? They are going to impose a biosecurity tax on our farmers. If you don't know what that is, it is a biosecurity tax on our farmers for what we are importing from other countries. We are punishing our farmers for what people overseas are sending here. Well, guess what's going to happen: you're going to pay more, because the farmers have no option but to pass that tax on to the consumer. If you thought it was bad now, with 30 per cent more on your grocery bill, wait until this tax is introduced and passed on to you—passed on to the mums and dads in regional and rural Australia. It is tough enough.

Then I move on to the cost of electricity. There's complete silence from the other side. Not one member did I hear. What I have heard is that your bills are lower, apparently—

The wholesale price has halved!

Order! The member for Cowper should not be encouraging interjections from the other side.

Sorry, Deputy Speaker. I was simply making a submission that electricity bills have increased. Power is more expensive, and I have not heard the alternative from the other side. What I have heard is that, apparently, power bills have gone down by $125 per quarter. I defy anybody here, anybody in this place—

Where did you hear that from?

I'll take the interjection. It was the Minister for Indigenous Australians who made that submission, only this morning. You can go to Hansard and have a look at it. We have seen power prices increase by over 20 per cent.

I'll give you an example of a person in my electorate, in fact in my office, who went out and put solar on her roof because she was worried about the cost of electricity. Well, it's made no difference—absolutely no difference—because of the power prices. She hasn't got a battery—couldn't afford the battery. It's going back into the grid, but the cost of power is so high that it makes no difference to her. There are people out there struggling to pay their power bills, while people across the aisle are telling us, 'Your power bills are lower.' It's just not true. You know it's not true, but you won't admit it.

Then there's gas. The price of gas is up by 27 per cent. Plenty of people in rural and regional Australia don't have power to their place. They live remotely, so they rely on gas, with a 27 per cent increase in the price of gas. And now we've got state and territory leaders saying: 'We're actually going to force you to have gas in your house so we don't rely on coal-fired power stations. We're going to make you have gas elements in your house.' It's happening in Victoria. It's being floated in New South Wales. They're trying to put more pressure on people in regional and rural Australia by interfering, by entering your house and telling you what to do and how to live. The cost-of-living pressure keeps piling up, and what do we hear from the other side? Nothing—not one word about gas prices increasing by 27 per cent.

Then there's insurance. Insurance premiums are tripling, particularly in regional and remote areas. What is the government doing about this? Nothing. There's no intervention—'That's your problem; that's not our problem. We're going to give you $67 a month to deal with this. This is our big gift to you: $67 to cover the extra $22,000 a year on your mortgage, the increase in your electricity prices, the increase in your gas prices and the increase in your insurance prices, and that $67 will go a long way.'

Then there's petrol. When we were in government, the excise on petrol was 44c. It's now above 49c. On top of that, you have 18c in GST, so it's about 67c. Petrol was cheaper when we were in government and we cut the excise in half during COVID to give punters a break, because we knew they were doing it tough during COVID. And now what is this government doing? Nothing. They're not going to cut the excise in half. They've said so. When you're travelling around the city on the metro or on the trams, with short distances to work and short distances home, you're not concerned about the price of petrol. But in the regions, where you're driving 100 or 150 kilometres to work or you're on the road for work, it makes a huge difference—a massive difference—to what's in your back pocket, to the point where some people say, 'I simply can't do that job anymore, because I can't afford to travel that far.' Yet this government will not cut the excise. Six months, 12 months—give the people a break. Have a look at it. Be genuine. Don't stand up here and say, 'We're giving you $67 a month.' Sixty-seven dollars wouldn't even fill half your tank, and most people in regional areas go through two tanks a week. It's tough. Let's get real. Let's do something that really helps our people.

And then there's wages. According to those on the other side: 'You've never been better than under us. Your wages are going up.' The reality is that people are worse off by $8,000 a year. They're worse off and they know it, and they're telling the members opposite and they're telling the members on our side. But do we hear it from the other side? No. You've never been better off than under Labor, according to them. It is tough out there for these people.

I've heard over the past two days: 'We're giving you cheaper child care.' Well, you can't get into child care in the regions. There are waiting lists of 200 to 300 people. There are police officers and nurses swapping shifts and organising their diaries so they can look after each other's children. That is a fact. And people aren't able to go to work and make more money, because they can't get into child care. As for aged care, apparently in the city, if someone needs to go into aged care, you can just walk up and book them in. 'See you, Nan. We'll be back next week.' Good luck finding a position in aged care in the regions! The delusion that's coming from the other side that people are better off is just unbelievable. That may be the case in your seats, but it's not in the regions, because you don't think about those people in the regions.

Let me talk about telecommunications. What about 28 out of 28 telecommunication towers in the last round? Where did they go? They went to Labor seats.

Wrong!

Order, Member for McEwen!

He's misleading the House.

I take the interjection. I defy the member to prove that, because eight out of those 28 were deemed inappropriate and not based on evidence.

This is almost like The Truman Show. Labor is almost like The Truman Show. They think that they're living in this perfect world, but it's completely scripted. It's completely untrue. What's going to happen is that the public, just like Jim Carrey, are going to realise that it's untrue and that they're living a lie under Labor. They're living an untruth and they'll want to get out of that world. And they'll find that door, and on the way out they'll say to Labor, 'Good afternoon, good evening and good night.'

I'm really genuinely so pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and to talk about how our Labor government is going to deliver Albo's tax cuts and what this will mean for my Hotham community.

I have been a member of parliament now for 10 years, and, in that time, I have of course engaged frequently with my community, talking to them about issues that matter to them. Over those 10 years, whenever you do a street stall or you're doing your shopping in the supermarket, people come up and talk to you about what's going on for them. Usually, the things that they talk to you about are really varied. It'll be an experience they're having with a kid who's trying to get into the NDIS. It'll be something they're dealing with in the healthcare system. It'll be an issue that they're dealing with in early education. But I can tell you one thing for every member of parliament in this chamber: when we engage with our constituents today, we hear about the cost of living. That is the first, second and third order of priority, and there is daylight until the next issue gets raised with you.

We hear about it in a variety of ways. I talk to parents who just cannot afford to buy the groceries they need for their families. I talk to parents who are struggling terribly with rents and people who can't afford to fill their car up with petrol to go to work every day. These are real things that are really happening in my community in Hotham, and today our government is doing something serious and real to help those families, and I'm proud of that. I talk to my constituents, and they raise the cost of living, and they do it again and again. My message to my constituents today is: 'We hear you. Our Prime Minister hears you.' That's why we have re-engineered these tax cuts, and we are focussing those benefits on low- and middle-income households right across my electorate and our country.

I want my constituents to understand a few simple things about the tax cuts. The first thing is that every single taxpayer in Hotham will get a tax cut on 1 July, and 90 per cent of the people that I represent in parliament are going to be better off because of the changes that our Prime Minister has made. I hear derisory words around the parliament about what this will mean for families in my electorate, and I think it is snobbish and pathetic, because the truth is that a hundred bucks will make a huge amount of difference to some of the families in my community. When you put it together, we are talking about a lot of families in my community that will be thousands of dollars better off a year. Liberals born with a silver spoon in their mouths might find that that's not a lot of money, and for their constituents and some people in their communities maybe that's accurate. It's not for my community. Thousands of dollars extra in their pockets a month means a hell of a lot to families in my community that can't afford to buy groceries anymore. For a cleaner in Clayton, a nurse in Noble Park or a mechanic in Mulgrave, this is going to help them get back on track and pay the bills at the end of the month.

I've been a member of parliament for 10 years. It is not that often, honestly, that I can stand in this chamber and say that I am doing something good that will benefit every single person in my electorate. But today I can say that, and I can say that because of a decision made by our Prime Minister, and I'm really proud of that. A nurse who works at Monash hospital in Clayton will be able to keep more than $1,500 a year in that pay packet of theirs. A teacher living in East Bentleigh and working in one of our incredible local schools is going to be $1,400 a year better off. A truck driver living in Springvale South, who's getting up at the crack of dawn, getting behind the wheel and delivering food and logistics that we need all over our great state, will keep an extra $1,300 to make ends meet. An average family in my electorate will be twice as better off than they would have been under the coalition's tax cuts. That's the power of having a government that actually listens, cares and gets on with the job of making a change that will help the people we represent in this parliament.

We've had a pretty interesting sitting fortnight, and I think you are starting to see emerge two really clear pictures of the approaches that the two main parties of government have towards what's going on in our country right now. For the people who sit on the other side of the chamber, the Liberals and the Nationals, it's all about opposing things that might help the families we represent. It's all about trying to make people work longer for less. What we've seen is the ultimate contortionist operation over there with something that's going to benefit 84 per cent of people. A hundred per cent of taxpayers are going to get a tax cut, and the people who sit opposite me, who pretend to represent their constituents, contorted themselves into knots for weeks before they said that they would come forward and support the legislation. In fact, their instinctive response to this was to say: 'We're going to wind it back. We're going to increase taxes for people in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.' It's absolutely ridiculous.

Don't forget what we're seeing on industrial relations, where we are making real strides and seeing real wages growth for the first time in a long time for families around this country. Again, the coalition comes in and says that they want to roll back the changes that we're making. One of the first things they're going to do is to roll back those changes. The Liberals want you to work longer for less; we want you to earn more and keep more of what you earn. As we go through the rest of this term in parliament, Mr Speaker, I think you'll see that increasingly played out in the public policy conversation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you won't mind if, on indulgence, I very briefly address another matter. We have had very serious natural disasters affect Victoria in the last couple of days. In particular, incredibly severe storms have ravaged the south-east of Melbourne overnight. I've been speaking with constituents in my community. There are trees down everywhere. Some of the houses are flattened, cars have been destroyed and, of course, the vast majority of my community is without power right now. My own household has lost power, and I only share that to say we're living that with you. My husband has been sending me pictures of the family eating dinner by candlelight. Their local school is seriously damaged.

I want to say something quickly to kids who lived through this yesterday in their classrooms. I talked to my son, who's in grade 2, and he described what was an absolutely terrifying experience of living through that storm in a classroom environment where the children were really upset and really scared. I just want to say to those children that I'm sorry that you had to go through that experience.

Please know that the federal government will be working closely with the state government to do everything we can to help support and protect our community and to help with what is going to be an absolutely massive clean-up for our south-eastern suburbs.

Finally, I say to our emergency workers, our police, our SES, our firies and our sparkies, who are trying to bring the power back online: we are so grateful for the work that you do. These incidents are really hard, but they bring out the best in Australians. I want to thank my beautiful community and just let you know that I'm here using the voice that you've given me in federal parliament. Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank the minister.

As I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, I wonder how this moment will be seen in the future. As the member of North Sydney, I stand here in a unique position, representing the electorate that would have seen the largest amount of money delivered to people in a community under the original stage 3 tax cuts legislation. Indeed, it's not an understatement to say that when I was running for this seat many people were eager to understand where I stood on this issue. Did I believe the tax reform proposed under the prior legislation was the right reform? Would I fight to ensure the reform was delivered, and, ultimately, would I hold the government to account, ensuring that they delivered on what they had promised?

At that time, my answers were pretty straightforward. Yes, I believed the tax reform proposed was the right reform. We had already seen two of three phases executed, with each phase designed to address a specific perceived issue within the then tax frame. I'd spoken with Ken Henry, one of the brightest minds of our time in terms of good tax policy, and I was satisfied the removal of the 37c bracket would be good for a huge portion of the community. Yes, I would fight for tax reform. I believe a broad based review of our tax environment is long overdue and we cannot, as a federal governing entity, continue to rely on taxes generated by those who work. To do so is to risk disincentivising people to strive for greater. And, yes, I would hold the government to account should they not maintain their end of the deal. Yet here I am looking at a significant change that I honestly did not think would happen. Why would I? After all, this government and this Prime Minister had given me absolutely no reason to doubt that they would not follow through on what they had repeatedly identified as an unbreakable promise.

To be clear: under the current government's new plan, overall my electorate of North Sydney will see the largest reduction in personal income tax cuts from the modified stage 3 tax cuts compared to the previous proposal. At the same time, however, while the total amount of money flowing into my own community will be significantly reduced, the actual number of people receiving a tax cut will increase. The fact that both of these things can be true—that seven out of 10 individual taxpayers in the North Sydney electorate will now receive a bigger tax cut than they otherwise would have and that the economy of North Sydney will ultimately receive $77 million less than it otherwise would have—is where the quandary of this situation lies for me as North Sydney's federal member of parliament.

Every time I stand to speak in this place and every time I vote, I am conscious of the responsibility of bringing my community's true voice to this place, and this issue has been particularly vexatious for me. I cannot help but feel that it is absolutely imperative that the message I deliver here today is reflective of my community's desires, not just my personal thoughts. That quandary has driven me to actively seek to gather a full and accurate picture of North Sydney's views towards these changes. In this context, the picture I speak of today has been built up in a number of ways. In the first instance, it has involved me actively listening to hundreds of people. I did this at street meetings, through online surveys and through calls for input via the local media columns and via advertising in local papers. I've read hundreds of emails and digested every morsel of information I could gather from community forums, both in person and online.

Whilst I was getting a feeling that I had a clear picture of where the people of North Sydney stood, I was mindful there may be some whom I simply wasn't reaching. So, following the release of the government's proposed new legislation just over a week ago, I commissioned an independent research agency to conduct a representative survey of the North Sydney electorate. The research shows a strong majority of my community—indeed, over two-thirds, or 68 per cent—support the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts, with just 18 per cent opposing them. But, rather than me paraphrasing them, I'd like you to hear from them directly.

From a person living in Hunters Hill I heard this: 'I'm one of the very high income earners in Hunters Hill and I am so supportive of these tax cuts to help struggling families and support such people who work so hard to put bread on their families' tables.' Another, from a different part of my electorate, told me: 'The proposed changes give bigger cuts to those who need them most. It is not about breaking election promises. It's about sensible financial policy.' Yet another said to me: 'I'm concerned that Australia's inequality of income and wealth is getting worse. The proposed changes will go some way to redressing this matter.' But much of the feedback from those who support these changes can be best typified in the following comment, which I received from someone who lives in North Sydney. This person said to me: 'I am a professional businessperson and earn more than $200,000 a year. The stage 3 tax cuts were never sound tax reform. They favoured high-earning professionals and others, to the detriment of those who most need it—teachers and nurses et cetera.'

With all that said, while most of my community support the changes, some do not, and I do not wish to minimise them or allow them to be pushed aside as 'the greedy few'. Rather, many people have very legitimate reasons for being disappointed with this change in government policy, and some feel they've been blindsided, for, while they may be on what is considered a high income in this discussion, they are also frequently the primary or sole income earners in their families, and many are experiencing significant financial stress, either via increasing mortgage rates or through increased cost-of-living pressures. As an example, one person shared the following with me. They said: 'I earn just over $180,000 a year, and that means my husband, who cannot work for health reasons, is not eligible for government support. We have downsized our rental home twice in the last four years to help adjust our outgoings. The bottom line is, despite my perceived high income, as a single-income household, we do have to live to a tight budget, because $90,000 of my gross income goes on super, Medicare and tax. In terms of the anticipated 9K benefits from stage 3 tax cuts, they are simply no more.' Yet another offered to me: 'While I do support these changes, I just want to say I feel let down. I know that, according to the wider world, I'm considered rich. I earn over $200,000 a year, but I'm a single mum with three older children and I'm trying to help them finish their schooling. I rent a house where all four of us live and I'm trying to cover all of our living expenses, from insurance to groceries. Right now, once all of those costs are covered, I live on $16 a day. I understand that there are others in greater need and I want to be a bigger person, but I also do not want to feel bad about the fact that I'm disappointed.'

We cannot pretend that these tax cut changes will have no negative impact, because they will. There are people in my community who were counting on the promised tax cuts to keep up with mortgage repayments, school fees and rising grocery prices. Understandably, they're frustrated that they were told by this Prime Minister for so long that these changes would go ahead unchanged.

Ultimately, though, I think that it's not the broken promise that my community lament but rather the fact that they feel that they were misled along the way, because, to be clear, the majority of my community believe a strong government is one that does change policies to suit the times. In fact, three in five said that they believe it is acceptable for the government to make changes to the stage 3 tax cuts given the changing economic conditions and pressure on the cost of living, compared to less than a third who believe the changes amount to a broken election promise and undermine trust in government. Ultimately, my community believes this change makes sense for the time.

Looking at it through a local lens, the truth is that more people in my community will be better off under the proposed changes. Through an equity lens, nearly 90 per cent of all taxpayers will get either the same or a larger tax cut under the new plan. The changes proposed will promote greater equity and direct more support to those Australians who are doing it toughest. The Medicare levy adjustment will also go some way to providing relief to lower-earning Australians, but my community would encourage the government to consider providing more cost-of-living relief for those who do not necessarily benefit from these tax cuts—those on JobSeeker, age pensions and disability pensions—for the people of North Sydney believe we must take care of the most vulnerable in our community. Through a gender lens, 90 per cent of female taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut under these changes. In this way, the government argues these tax cuts will directly benefit taxpayers in high-demand but lower-paid jobs with a high percentage of women, including teachers, nurses, aged and disability carers and childcare workers, all of whom will receive some tax refund under this scenario. And, through a fiscal lens, more than 100 economists and tax experts have called for changes to the stage 3 tax cuts, labelling the original tax cuts economically unaffordable and unfair. This included former ACCC chair Allan Fels AO, who said:

The tax cuts—

in their previous form—

would add to our inflationary woes, are fiscally inappropriate in light of major demands on the public purse, and unfair unless linked with wider tax reforms.

Finally, according to Treasury estimates, these changes will increase labour supply by around 930,000 hours, more than double the labour supply benefit from the previous stage 3 tax cuts.

Looking at it in this way, then, it would appear this changed legislation is better for the times we find ourselves in, and I believe that is why the majority of North Sydney people support the changes. They are fairer, more equitable and more fiscally responsible than what was previously proposed, and these are the principles that my community values.

But I also take this moment to put the government on notice. If you want my community to trust you, you need to be more forthcoming with your thinking. You need to treat my community with respect. We do not expect that all the conversations will be easy, but we do expect to be given an opportunity to contribute to them. We do not want to find ourselves stereotyped as those who have more and therefore can afford to pay more. From the outside, it's always easy to imagine that someone has it easier than someone else, but please do not lose sight of the fact that we are people just like all others, working hard to build a better world for our children and their children. We do not want you to lose sight of the fact that we are also fighting hard to maintain a diverse and cohesive community where essential workers can afford to live near where they work and young people can aspire to raise their own families in the communities in which they grew up. Ultimately, we will welcome this change to deliver bigger tax cuts to more Australians, but please know that the lack of transparency from the government in making these changes has impacted people in a very real way.

The debate around stage 3 tax cuts has highlighted just how overdue this country is for a total and holistic review of our entire tax system. It is clear we need to find other revenue streams and opportunities aside from income tax, like taxing multinational companies, windfall profits and carbon emissions. A much bigger conversation about tax needs to happen in this place, and it is imperative that this change stop being positioned as reform. It is not. It is a change from what was previously promised; it is not significant reform. A conversation about tax reform that is based on clear principles, incentivises the things that we want and disincentivises or taxes the things we do not must take place. We must also, though, always be mindful of encouraging and rewarding ambition and hard work, and we ask you to be mindful that, as the only other Independent to hold this seat, Ted Mack, was renowned for saying:

… the very basis of democracy is that a decision taken by the public as a whole will be right more often than decisions taken by an elite group …

We expect to be part of the conversation, and we welcome the opportunity in the future.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 will deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. That's all 13.6 million taxpayers, not just the select few as under the proposal of those opposite. The 19 per cent rate will be cut to 16 per cent and the 32½ per cent rate cut to 30 per cent. For the 37 per cent rate, the threshold will be raised from $120,000 to $135,000, and for the 45 per cent rate the threshold will be raised from $180,000 to $190,000. It is actually the first increase in the threshold since Labor was last in office. A tax cut for every Australian taxpayer is something every member of parliament should vote for. But we'll wait to see what happens when we get to the vote, given the conflicting, confused, chaotic response of those opposite.

In my electorate 89 per cent of taxpayers will be better off under Labor's tax cuts than under the Liberals' proposals. People in Dandenong, Doveton, Dandenong North, Noble Park North, Noble Park, Eumemmerring, Hallam, Narre Warren, Narre Warren North, Narre Warren South and Endeavour Hills will be better off under Labor's proposals. Every taxpayer will get a tax cut. Eighty-four per cent of Australians nationally—11½ million taxpayers—will be better off under Labor's tax cuts than under the Liberals' proposals. All taxpayers earning up to around $150,000 will be better off under Labor's tax cuts than under the Morrison government's proposals. Nurses, teachers, truckies and care workers get a bigger tax cut under Labor than under those opposite.

It is important, given the significant fiscal impacts of this bill to reflect on why Labor's tax cuts are needed and why this is the package, why this is the right plan, right now. It's part of the government's economic plan to allow Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Now, there's no magic bullet, of course, to the cost-of-living crisis and the pressures people are under. I represent one of the most disadvantaged parts of the Melbourne metropolitan area in south-east Melbourne. Indeed, I think the biggest—what's a synonym for 'hypocrite', because I can't say that—

The coalition?

The coalition—indeed! Thank you, Member for Moreton. The biggest frauds opposite are actually the National Party MPs who represent some of the poorest, most disadvantaged electorates in the country. Their voters—their electors—will overwhelmingly be better off under Labor's tax plan than the one they've been advocating. But there is no magic bullet to the cost-of-living pressures people across the country are under. Labor's tax cuts come alongside our cost-of-living relief—cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, energy price relief, the biggest increase to rent assistance in decades, more Medicare bulk-billing, expansion of paid parental leave and a boost in income support payments for the most vulnerable in the community. The tax cuts complement those measures by allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

Cost of living is about money in, money out. Unlike those opposite, the government has an explicit agenda to get wages moving. We've finally had some good data on that. Wages are growing at their fastest rate for 15 years. We've had two consecutive quarters of real wage growth. Of course, the decade of decay and dysfunction and division of those opposite—the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison horror show—saw real wages in this country go backwards. And they can't blame COVID. Real wages were going backwards even before COVID on their watch. It was part of their deliberate design feature of economic management, as Mathias Cormann, the former finance minister, admitted in a rare moment of honesty on a television interview, where he said, 'Well, of course, low wages are part of our deliberate design feature of what we try and do.'

We have the opposite philosophy. The Labor Party wants to see people earn more and keep more of what they earn, and that's what these tax cuts are about. Importantly, though, they're not inflationary. Without a doubt, inflation is the central economic challenge the country has faced last year and this year. Inflation—when prices rise faster than wages—hurts low- and middle-income earners the most. Anyone with a sense of economic history who is old enough to remember what has happened to other countries around the world, who is old enough to remember the crises in decades past, knows that tackling inflation and getting inflation under control has to be the central focus of any government. If it isn't then we see more interest rate rises. The government has to carefully design tax cuts, carefully design cost-of living-relief, so as not to make the problem worse.

But the right thing to do when your country faces economic circumstances is to change your economic policy settings and that is what we on this side are doing with these redesigned tax cuts. The right thing to do is not to sit around and wring your hands and say, 'People are doing it really tough. That's bad, isn't it? I wonder what will happen?' or 'I don't know; we will give ourselves a $9,000 tax cut—which is what the Liberals' wanted; that was their proposal—while everyone else gets nothing.' That is not on. These tax cuts are good for workers, they are good for families and they are good for the economy.

But it is important to reflect. We have put our case. Overwhelmingly, the feedback from my community and across the country is Australians support Labor's tax cuts. Why all the screeching and shouting from those opposite over the last few weeks? It has been truly bizarre. It has revealed what a confused rabble they really are, if you didn't see it on television over the last couple of weeks on Nemesis. It is absolutely clear from everything they have said that the Liberal and National parties want to vote against tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners.

I will read the quotes. The shadow Treasurer said: 'Of course, we are going to try and stop it. A move away from the stage 3 tax cuts will not be something we can support.' Their Churchillian deputy leader said: 'When this legislation hits the parliament, we will fight it. We will fight it all the way. I am digging in along with my colleagues and our leader, Peter Dutton, to fight this really hard. We will fight this legislation through both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We're not prepared to give up on this.' Well, that lasted a day. Her position was her commitment to rolling back tax cuts. That was absolutely her position. The opposition finally had a policy. It was to raise taxes on 84 per cent of Australians. That was their brilliant genius policy they were going to take to the next election. That lasted a couple of days. Senator Canavan said, 'I don't support the government's change and broken promises on tax.' Then their leader, Mr Dutton, intervened to try and referee the family fight. He said they wouldn't oppose Labor's tax cuts.

It is clear as mud because over last week the shadow Treasurer was interviewed by Natalie Barr. She asked him, 'Do you want more support for the lower end?' The shadow Treasurer said 'No'. David Speers asked him, 'You promised to keep these stage 3 tax cuts, of course, and now you are supporting their changes?' The shadow Treasurer said, 'No, we're not.'

The opposition's position is incoherent, inconsistent and a shambles. This debate has revealed them as frauds. They love to say, 'Tax cuts are in our DNA.' It is part of their brand schtick and propaganda. The only problem with that is these inconvenient things called facts and economic data. The two highest-taxing governments, certainly while I have been alive—50 years—in decades have been: No. 1, John Howard and, No. 2, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments as a percentage of tax to GDP ratio. That is the accepted measure. On any measure, when you look at it, Labor is a lower taxing party of government, and these tax cuts under Labor are fairer and better for the economy. The last time the top tax threshold was actually raised was under prime ministers Rudd and Gillard.

The first instinct of those opposite is always to oppose tax cuts and cost-of-living relief for low- and middle-income earners whilst trying to give themselves a $9,000 tax cut. It is the fundamental core point of the Liberal Party, isn't it, when you go right back through Australian political history, to protect people who have the most in society, whether that is wealth or income. If anyone is confused by this, watch what they shriek the loudest on. They shriek the loudest when you try and look after low- and middle-income earners and they shriek the loudest when you change laws to try and give workers a better deal; that's what really triggers them.

Another reason why they should support Labor's tax cuts is because they will overwhelmingly benefit women. This is a really important point. Labor's tax cuts will put more money back in the pockets of Australian women. In particular, they're good for the economy because, as the Treasury analysis shows, in cutting the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent they provide a greater incentive for people, particularly part-time workers, who are overwhelmingly women, to pick up an extra few hours or an extra shift. The estimate is that there will be hundreds of thousands more hours worked in the economy because of the tax cuts. They're good for the economy, good for labour force participation, allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

Under Labor's plan, women taxpayers will, on average, receive a tax cut of $1,649 from 1 July. For 90 per cent of Australian women, that's bigger than under the Morrison government's plan. Childcare workers, disability carers and aged-care workers are some of those most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers to receive a bigger tax cut than under the Liberals' plan. The government has done the gender analysis. As I said, it's overwhelmingly women who are in part-time and lower paid professions. A childcare worker in Dandenong, a receptionist in Noble Park North, registered nurses in Doveton, an office clerk in Eumemmerring, an office manager living in Narre Warren, a primary school teacher from Narre Warren North, an aged and disability carer from Berwick, an accounting clerk from Endeavour Hills, a nurse or personal care worker living in Hallam, a check-out operator living in Dandenong North, a general administrator living in Lysterfield South—all of these workers, overwhelmingly women, will be better off under Labor's plan. It's better for the economy and the labour market than the Liberals' plan.

My best advice to those opposite—free advice, take it or leave it, and as I say this I reflect that there are no women on the other side of the chamber; we have at the table the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth, the member for Cowan—is to stop the equivocating and back Labor's tax cuts. They're good for the economy, good for every taxpayer and especially good for women. This is so important, because we know those opposite have a problem with women. Their Senate leader—not some baked, has-been leftover but the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one of their big four—went on the television this week and said, 'Looking back, I can see that the absence of women, other than Julie Bishop, in the cabinet at the time, and the commentary around that, was a symptom of problems that were to come to dog us more fundamentally in an electoral sense in years to come, and to this very day.' 'In an electoral sense'—it's actually always about the politics, not about diversity in decision-making or having all views represented at the cabinet table.

Senator Reynolds, who's still there, though she's announced she'll be retiring at the next election—to spend more time with family or spend more time with the lawyers, who knows?—said:

I think it said to all of us that women weren't really valued enough to be selected into the ministry, and in particular into cabinet.

It certainly didn't send the right message.

But perhaps the most astounding thing was that Australia's former top public servant, Martin Parkinson AC, who was the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—

Very respected.

Incredibly respected, an economist and the most senior public servant in the country, who'd served both sides of politics, went on the television to say that the former Prime Minister—

Order! Member for Bruce, could you stay on topic. This is straying way out of the Treasury laws amendment bill. I think you're starting to make commentary—

Well, I'd reflect on some of the comments from those opposite. I'm making the point—I'll bring it back to the topic—that it is incredibly important that those opposite vote for these tax cuts because they're better for Australian women. We know that's difficult for them—and that's the point that I'm making—because they have a problem with women, as their own senior members say. The former head of the Public Service in Australia went on the television and said the former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, never valued women's perspectives.

The worst thing about all of this, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that it's never about the Australian people, never about good economic policy; it's always about the politics—as member after member from the former Liberal horror show went on television and told the Australian people. The only thing worse, of course, than the former Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments are the leftovers, those who are left behind who still hate each other and are an incoherent rabble. As I said, the quotes I read out are directly relevant to the question. Who knows how they'll vote? Their shadow Treasurer and deputy leader are busily saying, 'We don't support tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners; we'll roll them back at the next election,' while the leader tries to say, 'We'll vote for them but we don't support them.' It's an incoherent, inconsistent, nonsense position. I encourage them to get with the program and vote for Labor's tax cuts.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Obviously, in this place we make a lot of big decisions that affect people. Some are smaller than others, but one thing about tax law and taxation is that it strikes at the heart of most people's family budget, and it's something that we need to take extremely seriously. I just don't think that is happening on the other side. I really don't. I think, when it comes to this plan that the Labor Party has effectively cooked up on short notice, it isn't well considered. If you believe the Prime Minister, who's been telling us up until five minutes ago that there was no plan to change the stage 3 tax cuts, it's very hasty in its being brought forward, and it's ill considered. I'll go on to explain what I mean by that.

Of course I'm in favour of income tax cuts. They effectively give people their own money back. When you go for a job, and they tell you what your wage is, they don't tell you the amount after tax; they tell you the amount before tax, because that's your money. You're earning it. When you pay tax, the government takes that off you. Any legislation that comes before this House that looks to give people more of their own money back I'm naturally going to be in favour of. But it's the basis upon which these changes are happening. I certainly won't stand in the way of people getting more of their own money back, but I do think, under the circumstances and in the current economic climate, there is a better way of doing it. I don't think anyone likes paying tax, straight up. A lot of people give their altruistic views on taxation and it being a wonderful thing. I think it's a necessary evil, and I don't think people actually really do like handing over money to the government.

Certainly, taking more income tax off of people is one of this government's key achievements. Indeed, 27 per cent more income tax has been going into the economy under the Albanese government in the last 18 months. A 27 per cent increase in personal income tax under this government is quite extraordinary, really. That's before you start looking at the 10 per cent GST on the goods and services that are absolutely going through the roof with this current cost-of-living and inflation crisis that has been 100 per cent brought about by the policies of the Albanese government. People are paying a 49 per cent excise every time they fuel their car up. That's only going to become worse, with transport costs that will go through the roof under the new policies that have been brought forward by the Labor Party, which will see electric vehicles and hybrids forced into the market and onto people who can't afford what will be a major increase in cost to purchase a vehicle.

People are already paying excise on beer and wine, and tobacco is going through the roof. There are the policies around tobacco, which they're gouging more and more out of. They're not only failing on a health basis, because all we're seeing is illicit tobacco shops popping up all over the place. It's an absolute disgrace what this government is doing in terms of their economic management. Labor talks a big game on middle-income and low-income relief. But we've got to remember it's the coalition who have already delivered $40 billion worth of tax relief to low- and middle-income earners in their three-stage plan, of which the Labor government are certainly changing the third stage, which they initially agreed to and promised the Australian people that they wouldn't change. But $40 billion has already been returned to taxpayers.

Stage 1 provided tax relief to low- and middle-income earners earning up to $90,000 by raising the 32.5 per cent tax rate threshold and introduced a low- and middle-income offset. That was a key piece of policy that was designed to help people in a cost-of-living crisis. It was something that could be implemented at short notice, something that wasn't permanent but could be directed at those who needed it most at the right time, unlike this structural change that is certainly not going to be in the long-term interests of Australian taxpayers and the economy.

Stage 2 increased the 19 per cent rate threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. The 32.5 per cent rate threshold was raised from $90,000 to $120,000, and the low-income tax offset increased from $445 to $700, with low-income earners eligible to receive both tax offsets.

Stage 3 would have simplified and flattened the system by removing the 37 per cent tax bracket completely. That was a very important piece of legislation that would have addressed bracket creep. Those people in the middle-income range, hardworking Australians who are not rich by any stretch of the imagination, are being pushed into that next tax bracket and paying more tax through bracket creep, and that has certainly contributed to that massive increase of 29 per cent income tax that has been taken from hardworking Australians by the Albanese government.

That was the plan—in stage 3, we were getting rid of the 37 per cent tax bracket completely. That 37 per cent tax bracket really needs to be known as Prime Minister Albanese's tax bracket, because he owns that from here on in. That is his tax bracket. When hardworking Middle Australia are paying 37c on the dollar instead of 30c on the dollar, they can say, 'Thank you, Prime Minister Albanese, for making me pay more tax.' It shouldn't come as any surprise, but it is the case.

The low- and middle-income tax offset gave people back $1,500. That was the offset that we put in place in the coalition. The offset was removed by the Albanese Labor government in 2023, and the government now says that it will give these low- and middle-income earners about $800 back instead. We were giving them $1,500 as targeted relief in a cost-of-living crisis, and the Albanese Labor government, which is spruiking that it's making these wonderful changes, is giving back $800 as opposed to our $1,500. That's $15 a week, which won't go very far at all when you think about it.

We are living through a cost-of-living crisis. This government is failing badly when it comes to that. They will tell you that they are implementing all of these policies that are helping with the cost of living, but I ask you simply: Do you feel like you are paying too much for your goods? Under this government, have you felt like you are paying less? I think I know the answer to that, and the answer is a big no. People are paying more under Labor, and that is a fact.

The other aspect to this is the politics around this. Yes, there are some people, as I said before, who will receive more of their money back, and we won't stand in the way of that. But there is a big cohort of people who won't who are not rich. We've heard all of these television gibes throughout the week from the other side, but this is like an old repeat. This class warfare of envy is attacking Middle Australia.

I know frontline emergency service workers who are going to have money taken off them by the Albanese government. I was talking to one the other day. This person is somebody the Albanese government has decided is not worthy of the tax cut that they were going to get. This person goes to the most horrendous domestic violence incidents and puts their life on the line to help others in their community. This person is in a particular tax bracket not necessarily because of aspiration but because of a sense of duty. Particularly in Queensland, where the Labor government has mismanaged things so poorly, there are people working in public services that are very understaffed. They're not taking on overtime because they want extra money. They're doing it because no-one else will. That's what finds them going into these tax brackets that the Albanese government has decided it's okay to take money off. These are people that are serving their community on the front line and they're being labelled as rich and as not feeling cost-of-living pressures. That's absolutely absurd. The government should hang their heads in shame for engaging in that sort of thing.

To add insult to injury, this government is taking money off hardworking Australians and it's blowing it, with government waste like you would not believe. The greatest example, so far, of many is the referendum we had that cost $450 million. The government said, 'We're going to take this money out of your pay packet, hardworking Middle Australia, and we're going to spend money on things like a referendum.' It was an ill-considered referendum which should have been a moment of unity for our nation but did nothing but cause division. The government said, 'We're going to waste that $450 million, but we're going to take it out of your pay packet, hardworking Middle Australia. We're going to bury a billion dollars worth of Taipan choppers instead of using those assets more prudently. We're going to have a Prime Minister that decides he's going to fly around the world in the VIP jet but wants to talk about hardworking Middle Australia, who he's taking money off with these tax changes.' He's blowing money, left, right and centre. It's an absolute disgrace—it really is.

The good news is that after the next election we will, hopefully, have a different government that makes decisions in the interests of both the economy and the taxpayers who add to that economy. We will have a government that makes long-term decisions that will look further into the future to help Australian taxpayers and that will bring about changes that address bracket creep. We will have a government that will stop waste. We will have a government that looks after hardworking middle Australians, who are characterised by this government as rich snobs who don't deserve a tax cut. That government will, hopefully, be a Dutton government, and I will certainly be proud to serve as part of that government.

I'm very pleased to speak in this debate. I was listening to those opposite, and they were very forthright in their objections to these tax changes, which are bigger, better tax cuts for more Australians. So I was a little confused about why they are voting for these tax changes. They had the opportunity to get up, put a stake in the ground and show their opposition to these tax cuts, but, of course, they haven't done that, because, despite their rhetoric and what I think is a lot of hot air, they actually know deep down that these tax cuts are tax cuts for Middle Australia, they are tax cuts that support aspiration and they are tax cuts that give every single Australian a tax cut. If they didn't know or believe that, surely they would vote against these tax cuts, but they are choosing not to. They are putting a stake in the ground and saying, 'We support the government's tax cuts.' It would be nice if these quite contradictory positions were explained a little bit more in this debate, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I am very pleased to speak in favour of the tax changes put before the parliament, because the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 will provide a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer. Our No. 1 priority as a government is helping Australians with the cost-of-living pressures. From 1 July, the government is delivering a tax cut, as I said, for all taxpayers, which will provide meaningful and immediate cost-of-living relief up and down the income scale without adding to inflation. All 13.6 million taxpayers will receive a tax cut, and 2.9 million more taxpayers will receive a tax cut compared to the previous government's plan. Eleven point five million taxpayers—that's 84 per cent of taxpayers—will now receive a bigger tax cut compared to the previous government's plan. Our tax plan includes increasing the Medicare levy low-income thresholds, meaning that 1.2 million low-income earners will get additional tax relief on top of the tax cuts that the government is legislating.

Of course, the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts are better for workers and families and better for Middle Australia and communities right around Australia. This includes social and community services workers, who deliver a range of programs in my portfolio of Social Services, including services for people with disability, carer support services, initiatives to reduce violence against women and children, and other family and community supports. Our tax cuts mean that a full-time social and community service worker earning $75,000 will receive a tax cut of $1,554. This is double the tax cut that they would have got under the previous government. The rhetoric coming from those opposite would suggest that they disagree with this person getting double the tax cut that was otherwise planned. The rhetoric that we are attacking Middle Australia suggests that this worker on $75,000 should not get double the size of tax cut. Well, we think that this worker, along with all other Australian workers, should be able to keep more of what they earn. A part-time disability support worker earning $40,000 will receive a tax cut of $654, once again keeping more money in their pocket. Under the previous government's plan, this worker would have got no cost-of-living relief. So I am really pleased that, as a result of this government's tax plan, community service workers will be able to take home more of what they earn to help with cost of living. My portfolio and, indeed, many other social services would not be able to deliver these programs without the dedication of workers who touch lives every single day, particularly the lives of vulnerable Australians doing it tough.

Not only are our tax cuts particularly good for Middle Australia but they are also particularly good for women. All 6.5 million women taxpayers will receive a tax cut, benefiting by an average amount of around $1,650. Of course, 90 per cent of female taxpayers will receive a bigger tax benefit than otherwise was planned by the previous government. More than 90 per cent of taxpayers in essential and high-demand occupations, many of which have a high percentage of women, will receive a bigger tax cut. This includes teachers, nurses, aged-care workers, disability carers and childcare workers. Our tax plan will ensure more women keep more of what they earn and will help parents who are returning to work. Increases in take-home pay will also create opportunities for women to take on more hours, and we've seen in the modelling that this will boost labour force participation.

The government's tax cuts complement continuing reforms to address women's economic inequality by closing the gender pay gap, supporting workplace flexibility and security and rebalancing unpaid care work. Of course, I'm here particularly as the member for Kingston, and I am really pleased that the workers in the southern suburbs of Adelaide will get to keep more of what they earn under Labor's tax plan. There are 75,000 taxpayers in my electorate, many in the health area. There are care workers, tradies, technicians and office workers. They will all receive a tax cut, and 90 per cent of these taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut than they would have received under the previous government's plan. Once again, what the opposition is saying is that those people don't deserve a bigger tax cut. Workers in my electorate, in all those different professions, deserve this tax cut to support them with the cost of living.

Our tax cuts complement the significant other cost-of-living relief measures that the Albanese Labor government has provided, particularly for those Australians on low incomes. In the last budget, the government announced an increase to the working age and student payments, which commenced from 20 September last year. This additional support has been flowing, along with indexation increases of the relevant payments. Since Labor took government just over 18 months ago, the base rate for JobSeeker has increased by 17 per cent in less than two years. The government has also delivered the largest boost to Commonwealth rent assistance in over 30 years to help people on income support, pensioners and low-income families cover the cost of rent. Around one million households are better off up to $36 per fortnight, including indexation and depending on their household type.

Importantly, this has not only provided cost-of-living relief but has helped to moderate rent increases. This is an example of smart government policy that is delivering direct cost-of-living assistance but is not adding to the inflation challenge, and that has been keenly felt. In fact, the opposite is happening, and this measure has moderated rent rises. Whether it is strengthening the safety net, providing electricity bill relief, providing cheaper child care, tripling bulk-billing or providing cheaper medicines, the Albanese Labor government is doing a whole lot to help people with the cost of living.

As we've heard from those opposite, it's pretty clear that those opposite do not want these tax cuts for Middle Australia, just like they didn't want to see an increase to JobSeeker or provide electricity bill relief. What has been pretty stark is that those opposite clearly have no alternative plan. They oppose our bigger, better tax cuts to Middle Australia but are voting for them. It is clear that they absolutely have no plan. It is hard to understand their position on this, because their position has been changing quite a lot. On the first day, they were going to roll them back. On the second day they weren't going to make a decision until they'd seen the legislation. Then I think the shadow Treasurer equated the cuts to Marxism and said they would fight us every step of the way. Now they're voting for them. You could not contort yourself in as many different positions as those opposite have done when it comes to these tax cuts. But that is because this opposition are full of negativity. They're full of negativity. They're full of saying no. They have no plans for the future. There's so much negativity that they've spent how many days arguing against tax cuts that they are actually going to vote for. The Australian people can see this posturing for what it is: the cynical politics that we are seeing from those opposite.

Our government has taken the responsible action. Economic circumstances have changed and, as a result, we've adjusted our policies to meet those economic circumstances. We have been very, very clear that we want to support Australians with the cost of living, and ensuring we have a bigger, better tax cut has been important in that and in ensuring that our policy on tax does not add to inflationary pressures.

This is supported by Treasury advice, which stated the tax system is an effective way of providing cost-of-living relief without putting extra pressure on inflation. That is what the Treasury has said about our tax cut plan. Importantly, our tax plan puts Australians first. It will provide meaningful cost-of-living relief for everyday Australians in a responsible way that doesn't add to inflation.

While we see those opposite contorting themselves—will they, won't they, will they roll it back, won't they?—I look forward to seeing their tax plan, which we hear is going to come one day—one day it's going to come! I look forward to seeing the merits of that, but, based on the quality of this debate, I'm not going to hold my breath. I'm not sure we're going to see something from those opposite that is well thought through and is right for our economy.

This government will get on with doing what's right for the economy, but, most importantly, what's right for the Australian people, what's right for Middle Australia, because they deserve cost-of-living relief, and that's what we're delivering. I commend the bill to the House.

There has been a lot of focus recently on the Albanese government and their broken promises. This government promised to leave no-one behind—'no Australian behind' they said. Their promise was to hold no-one back. Their promise was to use the great privilege of government in order to make positive differences to the lives of Australians. These were promises that they made to Australians over and over and over again. Now, 18 to 20 months later, there is no doubt at all, absolutely none, that Labor have failed to deliver on their promises. Households and families in my region in the north-west, the west coast and King Island in Tasmania, families from across Tasmania, families from across the nation have never done it tougher.

The coalition successfully guided this nation through the biggest health and economic crisis in living memory. We handed the reins over to the Albanese government in 2022 and the wheels have invariably fallen off the cart. The latest food hunger report from Tasmania is alarming. In the past 12 months—and these are facts—84,000 Tasmanian households have experienced food insecurity. Let's just think about that for a moment. Let's just think about what it's like not having the means, the confidence to provide a simple meal for your family. In the 12-month period just gone, 84,000 households in Tasmania experienced food insecurity. This is 18,000 more households, more families, than in 2022. Imagine what that's like for a moment. The No. 1 reason Tasmanians are struggling to meet their food needs is because of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Eighty-seven per cent of Tasmanians say that the No. 1 reason for their food insecurity is the cost of living.

We need to be clear about the reason for this bill from the outset. What is the purpose of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024? It's certainly not a long-term economic plan. It came about just a few weeks ago. That's when a desperate prime minister called every member of his government to Canberra for a special crisis meeting—at great expense to the Australian taxpayer, might I add. This side has been telling this government and the Prime Minister that Australians are going to the wall. They're not doing it well; they're doing it tough. Australians are being left behind. Australians are being held back. We've been telling this government for 18 months, but they've refused to listen. So what was the purpose of the dash to Canberra and the crisis meeting? It wasn't about the cost-of-living crisis. The meeting was about what Labor believed to be a political crisis—the looming by-election in Dunkley, no doubt. They hatched a cunning plan. It was a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a fox. It involved most vulnerable Australians, giving them a pat on the head and 15 bucks in their pockets. But we'll kick that down the road in about five months time. They won't see anything in their pocket for approximately five months. They're hoping that in that time they'll win that by-election in the seat of Victoria. This government is not about people. It's just about politics, and that's what this bill is all about.

So how much has Labor's cost-of-living crisis cost us? Around 45,000 taxpayers across my electorate of Braddon in the north-west, West Coast and King Island will get a tax cut from 1 July. They will. If you earn around $50,000 you'll get around $15 a week under Labor's plan. If you earn around $73,000 you'll get $14 extra. Labor MPs have been rising in this place, telling us how generous they are and patting Australians on the head and giving every Australian an extra $15. Tell those families who can't feed their families at home and are lining up at welfare outlets in order to get a meal. Tell them what $15 does for them. What they should be doing is standing up and apologising for not meeting their promises to their electorates. This is a government that's giving $15 in order to compensate for the thousands of dollars, and in many cases tens of thousands of dollars, that Australians are worse off because of their economic mismanagement. It's shameful.

As I'm out and about in the electorate, on the ground listening to people, they've been telling me that the No. 1 issue that's holding them back is Labor's cost-of-living crisis. No-one is immune from it. Regardless of your tax bracket and irrespective of whether you are an employee or a business owner, Labor's cost-of-living crisis does not discriminate. It's hitting everybody, and it's hitting harder and harder and getting worse and worse. Parents are now making really tough choices about getting their kids what they need to return to school, because Labor's rising cost of living is biting into everything that they touch.

Under the Albanese government, Australians have seen the largest fall in living standards of any advanced country in the world. There have been 12 interest rate increases under this Labor government. Housing costs have risen. Mortgage payments have risen. Rental costs have gone up. Real wages have gone backwards. In fact, they've gone backwards by six per cent. Labour productivity is in absolute freefall, with a 6.7 per cent reduction in labour productivity since Labor came to government. When Labor talk about how they're growing the economy, the economy is growing only because of a rapid population growth. Almost half a million people have immigrated to this country in the past 12 months. For the past two quarters, the GDP per person has gone backwards, and yet those opposite believe that they should be congratulated. We should blow whistles and throw streamers for giving the most vulnerable $15 a week. It's an absolute joke.

The average household with a $750,000 mortgage is paying an additional $24,000 a year in mortgage repayments. This is a government that promised a $275 reduction in electricity prices, but we've seen electricity prices increase by 18 per cent, the complete antithesis of what they promised. Gas prices have gone up by 28 per cent. Food has gone up by 8.2 per cent. Rent has gone up by 10.4 per cent. The cost of insurance has increased by 17.3 per cent. The price of everything that we touch is going up for hardworking Australians. But Labor thinks it's okay if we give them $15 a week, pat them on the head and tell them how great they are. Well, it's not going to cut it—taking Australians for mugs.

It's important, when discussing Labor's alteration to the stage 3 tax cuts, that we tell the full story. In order to tell that full story, we must consider what the coalition introduced, the full suite of tax cuts, specifically aimed at helping low- and middle-income families. We are the government of lower taxes. Under a coalition government, stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts were legislated. Stages 1 and 2 were specifically targeted at people on low and middle incomes, and stages 1 and 2 were delivered as promised, because we stick to our word. The coalition's economic plan delivered $200 billion worth of targeted tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners.

This bill will reinstate the 37 per cent marginal tax rate, which was eliminated by the coalition in our original stage 3 plan. This means that if you're on an income above $135,000 you will pay more tax sooner in the years ahead, due to wage inflation. This is called bracket creep, and 2.3 million extra taxpayers, or 14 per cent of taxpayers, will face the 37 per cent rate in 2024-25. This will rise to five million, or 26 per cent, in a decade. Labor's decision to reinstate the 37 per cent tax rate is a war on aspirational Australians trying to get ahead. It reaffirms what we all know, that Labor taxes more.

If people work harder, if they take risks, if they invest, if they employ, they should not be unfairly punished or penalised for doing so. In fact, they need to be rewarded and encouraged. They need to be thanked. I believe 100 per cent that we need to be incentivising aspiration, incentivising people to get ahead, to work harder, to earn more and to pay less tax. Labor don't like that. They believe in big, bureaucratic, high-taxing governments, not small, nimble, profitable businesses. In Labor's first 18 months in government, personal income tax has risen by a record 27 per cent. Bracket creep, driven by rampant inflation, is the thief in the night. The reinstatement of the 37 per cent tax bracket is the tax increase that Australians never voted for.

Finally, we won't stand in front of any tax cut for Australians. It's not our way. But I believe that this government should have done something about the cost-of-living crisis, about the real cause, rather than simply giving a pat on the head. I call on this government to be honest and tell Australians why this bill is being introduced right at this present time. Families across the electorate of Braddon—in the north-west, the west coast and King Island—in Tasmania are telling me, about their cost-of-living pressures, that they've never seen anything like it in their lives. This side have been telling Labor, over and over, that our communities are doing it tough. Their response, for 18 months, has been to ignore our pleas and to do nothing. They've kept the money in the bank while our families have gone hungry. For the past 18 months, with money in the bank, the government have turned their back on struggling families. So why now? Politics—that's why. There's a revolt in Labor ranks across the backbenches. They're nervous that they might lose their seats because people in their seats are also feeling the cost-of-living crisis. This government might have promised to leave no-one behind. They might have promised to hold no-one back. But the truth is their promises have gone unfulfilled. Hardworking Australians always go backwards under Labor, and you'll always pay more tax under Labor.

To put politics aside for one moment, I urge all Australians out there to forget about politics for a moment and sit down quietly and consider this. Ask yourself the question: have you felt better in the last two years under Labor, or is your family—like mine, in my electorate—doing it tough?

I'm going to enjoy reading this carefully considered, detailed, factual speech. Listening to the previous speech, full of innuendo, scaremongering and real concern about these tax cuts, was just beyond belief. I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024.

I can tell you that when our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, announced the proposed tax cuts there were many happy faces around my community of Pearce. Our constituency is diverse and is one of the fastest growing and largest areas in Australia, with an average of seven babies born a day. We have many young families looking to establish themselves in Pearce, people moving in from other states and territories and from overseas, plus seniors who want to enjoy their retirement years close to their grandchildren and extended families. One of the reasons the electorate of Pearce is such a large and fast-growing area is that it's a beautiful location, with 32 kilometres of coastline, national parks and regional open spaces and thriving market gardens that have earnt us a reputation as the food bowl of the north.

However, we have all been challenged by the rise in the cost of living. Everyone is more cautious about what they are buying and how much they are spending. It is a conversation we are having within our families and friendship groups, and I have found people are happy to stop and chat about it openly. Families are becoming more careful in budgeting and financial planning, tracking income and expenditures and trying to identify areas where they can cut costs or make savings so that their essential needs can be met first. Many have sought social and community support to help them cope, and I would like to thank the many services in Pearce who have stepped in to support those in need.

The Australian Council of Social Service—ACOSS—released a paper titled 'People with the least need more support'. They reported that people on the lowest incomes are bearing the brunt of spiralling prices. ACOSS stated that frontline community services, which were already overstretched, are struggling to keep up with demand. ACOSS recommended a number of actions, including removing the stage 3 tax cuts altogether, as they really benefited only people on the highest incomes, not those under the greatest financial pressure. They were not alone in their criticism of the coalition's stage 3 tax cuts.

So how did we get here? Where do we go forward? Since the tax cuts were legislated five years ago, we have experienced a once-in-100-years pandemic, wars and global conflicts, global inflation spikes and higher interest rates. These events have put people under greater cost-of-living pressure. The Morrison government was piling debt on Australia. In 2022 the Albanese Labor government inherited almost a trillion dollars of debt, which was eye watering to say the least.

Thankfully, I am part of a government that listens to the community and acts. We know the family budget is under pressure and has been for some time. We have introduced measures to help our communities, including cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, electricity bill relief, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk billing, fee-free TAFE training, building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and getting wages moving again. The question is: what more could be done to ease the pressure? Something has to change, and it is clear that every taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut. Put people before politics—without a doubt, it works for me.

The Albanese Labor government's tax cuts deliver more relief to more people in a way that is fiscally responsible and does not add to inflationary pressures. They are designed to provide bigger tax cuts for Middle Australia to help with cost of living while making our tax system fairer. In my electorate of Pearce, every single taxpayer—I say that again: every single taxpayer—will receive a tax cut under Labor's tax plan, with 85 per cent receiving a bigger tax cut from 1 July.

As I have already stated, my community's diverse, as are others across the nation. Let's look at some figures. All 6.5 million women taxpayers will receive a tax cut, the average being $1,649; 1.5 million young Australian taxpayers aged between 18 and 24 will receive an average tax cut of $1,007; and, for those aged between 25 and 29, the average tax cut will be $1,573. Older Australian taxpayers will receive tax cuts ranging from $1,685 to $1,726. If you look at the tax cuts by occupation, a nurse earning $76,000 will get a tax cut of $1,579, a primary school teacher earning $80,000 will get a tax cut of $1,679, a truckie earning $77,000 will get a tax cut of $1,604, and a police officer earning $110,000 will get a tax cut of $2,429. Our tax cuts are good for Middle Australia, good for women, good for helping with the cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy.

Labor's tax cuts will make a real difference for 13.6 million taxpayers who will receive a tax cut, 2.9 million more than would have benefited from Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago. They mean that 84 per cent of taxpayers, including 90 per cent of female taxpayers, will now receive a bigger tax cut. Parents, particularly women with young children, will be supported to return to work under the government's changes to their take-home pay. This, on top of the changes we have made to paid parental leave, will further assist women, who for too long have faced long-term consequences for their economic security. Treasury estimates that our changes will increase labour supply, driven by increases in hours worked and participation of women with taxable income between $20,000 and $75,000. Associate Professor Ben Phillips from the Australian National University stated: 'Support now is across the board rather than just at the very top. So that's good in terms of workforce participation, and it's also good in terms of cost of living relief. I think overall it's a fairer package.'

At the time of the 2021 census, there were 177,513 people living in my electorate of Pearce alone. There were nearly 50,000 families and 66,000 dwellings. These figures have changed since that time, with many more people moving in. I stumbled upon that because I was just questioning the numbers, but they are factual. The new tax cuts will make a difference for families in Pearce. For example, for a family on an average household income of around $130,000, with one partner earning $80,000 and the other $50,000, their combined tax cut would be over $2,600, which equates to almost $50 a week and is $1,600 more than they would have received under the old plan. That makes a difference. It makes a difference to families' budgets and to what they can spend their money on. It gives them hope that things are going to be alright within the family. The additional $50 per week will make a difference. It could literally mean more food on the table. It could help with the mortgage or rent, with paying an unpaid bill or with buying a pair of much-needed school shoes. These are things that people hold dear to their hearts. They are meaningful on a day-to-day basis for people working, living and trying to make ends meet.

The government's changes will deliver a better, more progressive tax system, addressing bracket creep by dropping two tax rates, lifting two thresholds and giving everyone a tax cut. This will provide $359 billion in help with the cost of living and will return bracket creep where we can do the most good: in Middle Australia.

From 1 July this year, the government will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent, reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent, increase the threshold for both—with a 37 per cent tax rate applied from $120,000 to $135,000—and increase the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000. As stated previously, all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut from 2024-25 onwards. The government's tax cuts will lower average tax rates for all taxpayers. That cannot be emphasised enough. That is a really important statement of fact. As a result of the changes, the average taxpayer will pay $21,635 less of their income in tax over the next decade. Under our proposed changes, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year, which is around $29 a week—more than double what they would have gotten under the coalition's plan. This will help people in jobs that pay less, and it is important to us and the economy. Whether you are working in retail or as a checkout operator, as a pharmacy sales assistant or as a childcare worker, you are deserving of additional help.

It will also help to support many of the estimated 22,000 grandparents in Australia that are raising grandchildren, mostly due to some family crisis, conflict, mental illness, substance abuse, homelessness, child abuse, neglect or family violence. These grandparents have stepped in, and our tax cuts will help those grandparents who are trying to juggle that important task, with some using their superannuation to do so. Some are still working part time to supplement their income. For the single mum on a lower income doing the best she can to support her children, every tax dollar saved will count. Cassandra Goldie, the Australian Council of Social Services CEO, said of the stage 3 tax cuts:

These tax cuts were always bad policy and so we congratulate the Albanese government for listening to the deep concerns expressed by organisations including ACOSS from the beginning. They have now moved to make these tax cuts fairer to be targeting more of the dollars to people who do need help …

That is Cassandra Goldie, and we thank her for that comment.

While Australia offers a high quality of life, the cost-of-living challenges underscore the need for comprehensive and sustainable solutions to ensure economic stability and prosperity for all residents. The Albanese Labor government is providing meaningful cost-of-living relief in a responsible manner. We are delivering more help for working families and Australians who are under financial pressure by putting cash back into their pockets where they need it most, when they need it most. My community, like many others across the nation, are resourceful, resilient and absolutely deserving of our help. Every taxpayer in Pearce will get a tax cut.

In closing, it is also important to note that Treasury has advised that our tax cuts will not add to inflationary pressures, because they are broadly revenue neutral. The most recent inflation figures show welcome moderation. It is still too high, but it is moderating, and Treasury is clear that our tax plan will not impact their forecast for inflation to return to the target band next year. Our tax cuts are about ensuring more workers in Pearce and around the country can keep more of what they earn, because we know that it'll help take the pressure off people who are, without doubt, doing it tough. I reiterate the importance of listening and putting people before politics. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and I do this because I want to make a balanced contribution to the debate in this place that so far has been dominated by Labor's smoke and spin. Quite frankly, the introduction of this bill embodies the deception that's been on display from this Labor government. The bill before the House signifies the disdain that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have for hardworking Australians. The Labor leadership campaigned on integrity and transparency in 2022, and yet here we are.

The Prime Minister has broken his promise again. The Prime Minister has looked Australians in the eye and knowingly and repeatedly misled them. He promised Australians that they could trust him to keep his promise because, as he said, 'My word is my bond.' If the Prime Minister can mislead Australians so blatantly, how can anyone believe anything he says ever again? This broken promise is about the Prime Minister's political future and not the long-term benefit of Australians.

The government asked Treasury to look at options, including revising stage 3, on 11 December. But, following that, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer stated on at least a dozen occasions that they hadn't changed their position on stage 3, including when the Prime Minister said, 'We're not reconsidering that position.' This is a political response from the government, not a cost-of-living response. It's obvious that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer aren't serious about Australia's long-term economic prosperity. All they care about is politics, not genuine tax reform and not long-term prosperity.

We can see this clearly in the government's words in the last few days. In a trainwreck interview on Monday night the Treasurer confirmed that the government didn't want to wait until after the Dunkley by-election to announce the changes to the stage 3 package. Let's just get this timing straight. The government finished 2023 having lost the Voice referendum that they were so earnestly depending on. There's a by-election coming up, so what do they do? 'Let's quickly come up with a sugar hit.' Now, I know a thing or two about by-elections, and do you know what the difference is between the Fadden by-election and the Dunkley by-election? The Prime Minister made one visit to Fadden and offered no new announcements in July last year. But for Dunkley the polling must be so bad that they've had to throw out a five-year tax plan in order to save the seat.

So, again, this morning the Prime Minister is calling on the coalition to vote against his own bill. He really only cares about the political wedge, the short-term political gain and the tactics. This Albanese Labor government spent all of last year distracted and completely obsessed by its failed $450 million Voice referendum. Meanwhile, Australians are now thousands of dollars worse off as a result of this government's economic mismanagement. Living standards have absolutely collapsed under this government. Net disposable income is down by almost $8,000 annually. The average Australian has seen the money in their pocket simply disappear. And it's really bad for mortgage holders.

While Australians have spent the past 18 months crying out for help, it's apparently only occurred to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer over summer that Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis. The coalition's position, as it always will be, is that we are committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes. That's why ultimately we're not going to oppose the reduction of the 19c rate down to 16c. But we remain committed to fighting bracket creep and to supporting aspiration, because strong leaders keep their promises, even when it's hard. A future coalition government will deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes. We will fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in our tax system. We'll reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead. Importantly, we will unite rather than divide Australians over how much money they earn, either side of a tax bracket. Our tax reforms will always be fully costed and ready to implement. Most importantly, we will keep our promises.

So let's just re-examine what's actually in this bill. Labor's bill makes several changes to the already legislated stage 3 tax cuts, with the $18,200 to $45,000 threshold reduced from 19c to 16c. The flat $45,000 to $200,000 threshold that was going to be taxed at 30c is now going to be split in two: $45,000 to $135,000 at 30c and $135,000 to $190,000 at 37c. And now we're going to have the top tax threshold kicking in at $190,000. Additionally, there are increases in the Medicare levy low-income thresholds, in accordance with CPI. While we know that already 1.8 million Australians will be directly worse off as a result of these measures, including almost 10,000 residents in the electorate of Fadden, these numbers will actually swell in coming years. Labor's abject failure to address bracket creep will soon see the numbers affected rise to over four million. In addition, there will be budget blows. All of this is happening when Australians are already doing it tough under an incompetent Labor government.

Since coming to office, this Prime Minister has made wrong decisions, has been completely distracted and now continues to break promises. The Albanese government has failed to make any real headway in tackling inflation or getting interest rates anywhere near heading back down. Meanwhile, in Labor's first 18 months, personal tax receipts have risen by a record 27 per cent. Headline inflation remains more than 1.6 per cent above the midpoint of the RBA's target band. Most concerningly, food, housing, insurance, health and education costs are all growing much faster than the headline inflation rate. Core inflation measures remain higher than the headline rate, and the domestic inflation is a remarkable 5.4 per cent. Out of these tax cuts, an earner on the average $80,000 wage would receive just another $804 more under Labor's new policy, or $15.46 a week. That's less than one per cent of their annual wage and returns just 10c in every dollar of what they've lost due to cost-of-living pressures in Labor's first 18 months in office. Labor's broken promise entrenches bracket creep in our tax system and increases taxes by $28 billion on more than four million Australians.

What we actually have is a growing list of broken promises. Before the election the Prime Minister promised a $275 reduction in energy prices, no changes to super taxes, an increase in real wages, no changes to franking credits, cheaper mortgages and no changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. The Prime Minister has broken every single one of these promises. So what's next? The Prime Minister misled Australians and he's broken his promise. The consequence is that Australians quite simply cannot trust a single word that the Prime Minister now says. Australians cannot have confidence that the Prime Minister won't break more promises, and they're wondering, 'What's next?'

At the same time the Prime Minister promised he wouldn't touch the stage 3 tax cuts, he promised not to change negative gearing and taxes on the family home. But are these just going to be the next broken promises? If the Prime Minister and Treasurer are happy to promise on more than a hundred occasions to keep stage 3 and then just do what they've done here, what is it that they won't touch? The Prime Minister has been asked a number of times and we never get a straight answer. Is negative gearing next? The Prime Minister has failed to give a straight answer when asked very simply to rule out breaking his promise on negative gearing. The Treasurer was asked on 29 January about plans to make changes to negative gearing, and he said Labor wasn't 'considering it'. Funnily enough, that's what they said that about stage 3 tax cuts. The finance minister, on the Today Show, was asked that same question and said, 'We have no plans to do that.' That's what they said about stage 3 tax cuts. Does this government seriously expect Australians are going to believe a single word they say?

I want to come back to the bracket creep issue. The phone calls I've been receiving to my office and the people I know that I bump into in the street tell me that they are actually sick and tired of the way that their salaries are being characterised by this government. Is it really the case that someone earning $110,000, $130,000 or $150,000 is somehow rich and should be the target of this class warfare game that this Labor government continues to play? Last year, if you earned $150,000, you paid more than $40,000 in tax. If you earned $50,000, you paid $6,000. The people that have been calling me are the ones that are earning that $110,000, $120,000, $130,000 or $150,000. It's a pretty common bracket of income at the moment for lots of families on the Gold Coast. When you're earning that sort of money, you probably try to buy a home, and so over the last few years you've been absolutely belted by the interest rate rises. You get less childcare subsidy, so it costs more for parents to get back to work. You probably try to get the kids into private school education, so you're forking out each term for that. You've probably got private health insurance, so out comes another $500 a month on that. And of course you don't have concession cards, and you miss out on every handout that's ever given.

It's these people in Australia that don't feel like they're getting a fair go, and under this tax plan they can't see the fair go coming anywhere in the near future. I'm always happy for lower taxes in lower brackets, but what better way to drive aspiration than to say, 'You know what, it doesn't matter where you land between $45 grand and $200 grand; you'll only have to pay 30c on the dollar'? That gives a pretty broad range that the Treasurer himself has said was a good way to deal with bracket creep. It was one of the options, but he hasn't taken that option. This government is intent on just the sugar hit, the quick political fix, and is losing the opportunity for long-term reform that would lead to Australians being aspirational. What a wasted opportunity to reform the tax system! Again, this will deliver $15 in 137 days time. The problem for this government is that the bitterness of the broken promise will last long after the sugar hit is forgotten.

People around Fadden—in fact, all over Australia—are asking themselves, 'Is life actually better under this Labor government?' Eighteen months ago, things changed. They were supposed to change for the better, but they didn't. Cost-of-living pressures are biting Australian families, and they don't see a way out. What they really need to be cautious about is this: this Labor government has thrown them in a hole and then waited 18 months to try and give them a hand out of that hole. Australians are rightly suspicious of this Prime Minister and of this Labor government.

Life for people in my electorate has certainly changed for the better since Labor won the election. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, because this is a bill that reflects the Albanese Labor government's commitment to not only making life better and fairer for Australians but also addressing the cost of living and providing cost-of-living relief for Australians. Australians across the board are experiencing a cost-of-living crisis, one which is very strongly felt in my own community. My constituents more often are the ones who are doing it the toughest. They're also almost always the first to shoulder the brunt of any challenging economic times, and they often endure those challenges for much longer. That's why I strongly welcome the government's cost-of-living tax cuts.

These tax cuts provide tangible, real cost-of-living relief and support to Australians—again, especially to my constituents—while also providing reward right up and down the income scale so that aspiration is indeed rewarded and not thwarted. Every Australian taxpayer—13.6 million people—will receive a tax cut on 1 July under this government's plan, and 84 per cent of taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut under our plan than under the previous government's plan. In Calwell, where cost-of-living relief is, as I said, much welcomed in the electorate, every single one of the 72,000 taxpayers will now get a tax cut—a permanent reduction in tax—of an average of $1,300 per annum. Of the 72,000 taxpayers, 64,000 people in my electorate, close to 90 per cent, will receive a bigger tax cut under these measures than they otherwise would have under the previous government's stage 3 tax cut package. This is among the highest proportion of Australians to benefit right across Australia.

This legislation means our government will be delivering a bigger tax cut for more people—welcome news for workers and families benefiting from these changes. It will help take some of the pressure off people who are at this very moment struggling and doing it very tough. It will do so while ensuring that, while more people in our community get a bigger tax cut to help with the cost-of-living pressures, these measures are delivered without adding to inflation and without burdening the budget. The measures will benefit people who, as I said, would have received absolutely no tax cut under the opposition's plans—people in my community who would have been left behind if the opposition had their way. These are culturally and socioeconomically diverse working families already under the pump from the rise in the cost of living, for whom meeting the cost of day-to-day living is an ongoing challenge. This Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 puts cash back into their pockets when and where they need it most.

Cutting taxes, boosting wages, bringing inflation under control and driving fairer prices for Australian consumers is what this government's economic plan is all about, because tackling cost-of-living pressures, done fairly and delivered responsibly, is Labor's No. 1 priority. In addition, and more importantly, Labor's sensible economic management offers our community greater protection against bracket creep, particularly for low- and middle-income taxpayers, and supports the progressivity of our tax system. Our relief and reform package means more relief for workers and better reform in our economy, and that's what the changes in this legislation are all about.

Calwell reflects modern Australia in all its diversity, and just as Middle Australia is aspirational Australia, so too migrant Australia is aspirational Australia. Focused on building homes, building families and building our economy into the future, my migrant communities carry on the tradition of the great nation-building enterprise of the post Second World War migration program, which has seen this country and this country's economy develop. One of the central things that allows this social and economic reality to play out, which has benefited modern Australia, is the enabling of what we describe as the fair go—a fair go for those who want to live in a society that affords them opportunities and rewards aspiration, a fair go for every worker.

The nurses, the teachers and the tradies, who are some of the most likely to benefit, are also professions and trades that we're experiencing a high shortage of in this country. These are important skills and professions where this needs to be addressed and the skills need to be encouraged and developed domestically in order for us to fulfil the existing and looming work shortages going forward. A nurse earning $76,000 will get a tax cut of $1,579, and 96 per cent will be better off under Labor's plan. And what better way to assist and incentivise to grow our domestic capacity in areas where we have skill shortages? Many young people in my electorate, perhaps inspired by the focus and dedication, importance and value of frontline medical staff during the pandemic, are now considering and taking up careers in nursing. This is an aspiration which we should enable and assist. Making our tax system fairer for these professions will certainly bolster interest and their financial viability and attract young people or even those who may wish to retrain mid-career for another profession.

Our tax package also brings a similar attraction to other professions that will now benefit directly from our tax cuts. In that context, I refer to primary school teachers who will benefit. Teachers who are earning $80,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,679. Truckies who are earning $77,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,604 per annum. Police officers earning $110,000 will get a tax cut of $2,429 per annum. A shop assistant can expect a tax cut of up to $414 per annum. There are many people—a very large number of people—in my electorate who work in the IT sector. An IT manager on $160,000 per year, for example, can expect a tax cut of $3,729.

Many of my emerging communities have come here under the Skilled Migration Program and have chosen to make Australia their permanent home. Many international students who have settled permanently in Australia are also trained in the IT sector. They have chosen to build lives—lives for themselves and their families—here in this country, and they are certainly living in my electorate. They, too, make up the face of Middle Australia, which will benefit from this package.

Australian women, on average, will get a tax cut of $1,649 per year. There will be a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan, and this puts more money in women's pockets and, just as important, makes it easier for them to pick up extra hours of work, if they want to, as they will keep more of what they earn. This, alongside Labor's reforms to close the gender pay gap, support workplace flexibility and security, and rebalance unpaid care work, will help to address workforce participation for women. Women from my emerging refugee communities and my emerging migrant communities deserve the dignity of being paid fairly, of being able to keep more of their take-home pay and of having choices so that they can participate in the workforce and contribute to their families and to their own self-development.

Our modern economy must reflect the reality of our modern society, and our series of action packages, together, responds with this reality in mind and in practice. Whether you're on a low income and working part time or on a medium income, whether you're a couple with a single income earner, a dual-income couple who are both working full time or, indeed, a dual-income couple with one full time and one part time, every Australian will be better off under the tax cuts outlined in this important piece of legislation.

Importantly, ours is a government that understands that there is no one silver bullet to tackle the myriad of factors that add to the cost-of-living pressure ordinary Australians are facing. That is why all the measures in the proposed legislation will build on our $23 billion cost-of-living relief package, which includes significant support for lower-income earners, including energy bill relief and increases to income support payments. It's part of our broader plan and economic strategy to provide relief by boosting incomes, reducing costs and putting the budget on a stronger footing.

Those opposite consistently show a disconnect from the challenges faced by Australian workers. This disconnect is reflected in their standing against our measures and the actions that we have taken, whether it be on electricity bill relief, making medicines cheaper, cheaper child care, building more social and affordable homes, fee-free TAFE or getting wages moving again, including for minimum-wage and aged-care workers. They have stood against these measures. That those opposite are standing against these cost-of-living measures should come as no surprise to anyone. They are simply building on the previous government's record of inaction, which did absolutely nothing to arrest the escalating cost of essential goods and utilities.

People in my electorate know and understand the importance of a functioning government. They know that it is critical for government to intervene and put forward policies that reverse negative trends—policies such as increasing the Medicare levy low-income thresholds to ensure that people on lower incomes continue to pay less or are exempt from the Medicare levy. These have tangible, real take-home pay benefits. These are particularly important for the people of my electorate, because, as I said earlier, the cost of living is a huge concern to my constituents. These measures, along with the range of actions this government is taking to help ease cost-of-living pressures, is the core business of the Albanese Labor government, and I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

'My word is my bond.' So said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. He looked Australians in the eye and knowingly and repeatedly misled them—about 100 times, in fact. This Prime Minister has committed a breach of trust on a scale not seen since Julia Gillard's infamous 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' And Australians will not forget this.

There are three things I want to say about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. No. 1 is that it is a gross breach of trust with the Australian people. Secondly, it leaves out to dry a great majority of Australians, and they are Australians who are earning an income of between $130,000 and $190,000 a year. While these are income levels that are significantly above the national average Australian income level, many of these people reside in my electorate. Indeed, in order to purchase a home in my electorate they need to be on an income of that level. These are the Australians the Prime Minister and the Labor government, those on the other side, have completely let down with this process. Thirdly, the Prime Minister and Treasurer Chalmers have missed an opportunity to deliver and to continue to deliver real tax reform that was started under the former coalition government.

Turning to broken promises, if the Prime Minister can mislead Australia so blatantly, how can anyone ever believe anything he says ever again? How can we trust that when he says he will make no changes to negative gearing there'll be no changes to the tax treatment of the family home and that he won't jump into bed again with the Greens and look at pursuing some of their tax reform ideas, such as a wealth tax, an inheritance tax? How can Australians ever believe a word the Prime Minister says?

This broken promise about the stage 3 tax cuts is about the Prime Minister's political future. It's not about long-term benefits for Australians. It's not about the long-term benefits of reforming our taxation system and bringing about secure and firm economic management. We're now aware that the government asked Treasury to look at options, including revising stage 3, as early as 11 December last year. But, following that, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer continued to state at least a dozen times that they hadn't changed their position on stage 3. And this was legislation that both Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers both voted for in the previous parliament. If they are so committed to changing their position, why wouldn't they have simply come to Australians and said, 'We've changed our mind, and this is why.' Instead, 'My word is my bond' continued to be the mantra.

So this is nothing but a political response from the government. It's not a proper cost-of-living response. It's obvious from these changes that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer aren't serious about Australia's long-term economic prosperity. All they care about is politics, not genuine tax reform and long-term prosperity. We can clearly see that when we also know that the Dunkley by-election is coming up, and the Treasurer of course gave that train-wreck interview on Monday night where he confirmed that the government didn't want to wait until after the Dunkley by-election to announce changes. So these changes have been brought in simply to shore up a by-election and not in the long-term interest of the Australian economy. Remarkably, the Prime Minister this morning was calling on the coalition to vote against his own bill—absolutely remarkable: short-term political tactics aimed at wedging those of us on this side rather than looking at genuine economic reform. But Australians are smart. Australians can see right through this sort of politicking. Meanwhile, there are thousands of Australians who will now be worse off without the 37c tax rate disappearing from our taxation system. That will be not just in the short term and not just after 1 July but into the future, as we see more and more Australians impacted by bracket creep.

Again, this is reflective of this government's economic mismanagement, and we've seen this in the cut to Australians' living standards by at least 8.6 per cent. That's $8,000 a year that Australians used to have that they now don't have—$160 a week. If you have a mortgage, it's even worse. Average mortgage holders in Australia are now paying $24,000 to $30,000 more a year than they were under the coalition government. That's at least $500 per week in take-home pay. This is not sustainable for these people. The average renter is now paying $100 more per week than they were paying under the coalition government. These increases in housing costs are all attributable to economic mismanagement. It's a failure by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to rein in inflation which has led to 12 consecutive interest rate rises. This is what is really impacting Australians with their housing costs.

On this side, we have heard Australians in our electorates crying out for help with cost of living for 18 months, yet it only seemed to occur to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer over summer that Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis. We've now got the Dunkley by-election coming up so, suddenly, they are masquerading that they are delivering real tax reform. The coalition will be supporting these laws, and that's on the basis that we are committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes. That's why we won't oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c, for example. It's why in the first place we brought in a suite of tax reforms. We brought in stage 1 and stage 2, which showed our commitment to reducing income tax for Australians on low and middle incomes. Stage 3 was intended then to address those Australians on higher incomes. Many of these Australians are earning between $130,000 and $190,000. While that is an income that is significantly above the average Australian wage of $85,000 per year, these people have been forgotten by this government. Many of these people, in my electorate, for example, need an income of that amount to be able to pay their rent or their mortgage in that electorate. That is the same for many who live in our cities throughout Australia, whether that be in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane.

As we move into the election, the coalition will demonstrate that it is still committed to real tax reform and to real, proper economic management. We'll be going to the election with a tax reform package in keeping with these stage 3 tax reforms and more. That's because they were good reforms. They removed the 37c tax bracket, demonstrating our commitment to fighting bracket creep and enshrining aspiration for Australians. As a matter of fact, these reforms were so good that those on that side voted for them when they came in. Our package, therefore, will deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes. We will fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration into our tax system. We will reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead. We will unite Australians through a tax policy, rather than pitting Australians against each other and trying to bring in the cultural wars and the income wars of the class wars of the past. Our package will be delivered while providing for Australia's future security and guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely upon. Before we go to the election, the package will be fully costed and ready to implement when we are elected. Most importantly, we will keep our promises. Our word will be our bond. When we turn to the provisions of the bill, we see that it makes several changes to the already legislated stage 3 tax cuts, but, in particular, it has not removed the 37c tax rate, which was vital for us to look at addressing long-term bracket creep and to ensure—

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. As the member's speech was interrupted they will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed.

Townsville is this nation's Army capital. We're the largest garrison city with a robust defence presence, and we wear that title with pride. Lots of ADF members and their families have been posted to Townsville over the Christmas period, and it was great to meet so many of them at the ADF families 'Welcome to Townsville' event. I have no doubt they will make a significant contribution to both our defence capability and the Townsville community during their time in our great city.

But, when it comes to defence capability, our Defence Force is only as strong as its weakest leader. The Minister for Defence continues to prove his incompetence in his portfolio. This week alone, the minister has thrown our soldiers, our sailors and our aviators under the bus with his comment:

… there is a way to go before we have that culture of excellence in the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force.

The front page of the Townsville Bulletin on 13 February says, 'Australian troops thin on ground', with the article highlighting that personnel numbers are at critical lows. If members of the ADF don't think the minister is up to the job—and the numbers certainly back up their position—surely, he, too, can recognise that this portfolio isn't for him. I call on the Prime Minister to move him on so someone more focused can lead our ADF.

I've always said that Bendigo is the No.1 town in Australia. Now it has been confirmed. It is confirmed that Bendigo has won the first place on the 2024 Wotif Aussie Town of the Year list. We are very proud of this. We know that we are a town that attracts many. We're a great place to live. We have a brilliant art gallery. We have a thriving food and beverage scene. We have a strong connection to our First Nations people. That's what we've been recognised for.

What is also great about our town is the many people that live there. One of the other things that I've been speaking a lot about this week is how all the people in our town will receive a tax cut under the reforms that we have. In fact, every taxpayer in Australia will receive a tax cut.

That was a great segue!

This is a segue for the member for Gippsland—because all Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut, they'll have that little bit extra in their pocket to visit great towns like Bendigo. We are now named the best Aussie town in Australia. It's something we're very proud of and something we'll continue to celebrate for the next 364 days, when next year we'll also be named Australia's best regional town.

Australia Day is a day for all Australians to celebrate what is great about our nation. It's a day for all of us to come together as equals and give thanks that we live in the greatest country on earth. Australia Day holds a special meaning for many who become citizens on our national day. I was thrilled to welcome some of our newest Australians at a citizenship ceremony held on Australia Day in Pimpama on the northern Gold Coast. I was fortunate enough to host 60 new citizens as they took their oaths in front of family and friends. These new citizens have come to us from all corners of the globe, all with different experiences and cultures to weave into the tapestry of the Australian story. While welcoming our newest citizens, I was reminded why we are such a successful multicultural nation, being home to peoples from all over the world.

Also on that day, the City of Logan held their annual Australia Day awards for the Citizen of the Year and Young Citizen of the Year. Congratulations to this year's award winners: Citizen of the Year Margaret Harvey, and Young Citizen of the Year Elahi Elahi. Both of this year's recipients have volunteered their time and worked tirelessly to assist those in the community dealing with issues of homelessness. I would like to thank both winners, Margaret and Elahi, for their efforts and their tireless service to the community.

People in Hasluck and all over the country are looking forward to this parliament passing the Albanese government's cost-of-living tax cuts. I've said before that these tax cuts are so popular that this coalition, which thrives on the politics of fear, is too fearful to vote against the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024.

But something else is also becoming apparent now: the coalition members have had an epiphany. They are now secretly relieved to vote for this bill because they can now try to take credit for it. The member for Hume, for example, has realised he can go back to his electorate and tell the nurses there who are on a taxable income of around $76,000 that they will get a cut of $1,629. The member for Farrer, who wasn't so sure about the tax cuts yesterday, is enlightened now and can go back and tell the teachers in her electorate on $80,000 that they will receive a tax cut of $1,779. The member for Dickson can't wait, because he can now tell the police officers serving in Dickson on $102,000 that they will receive a tax cut of $2,229 from 1 July this year. I'm having a vision of a great conga line of coalition members all around Australia going back to talk up and speak about the brilliant Albanese Labor government tax-cut relief bill that this is. It's good for taxpayers, good for household budgets and good for the economy.

The Greens have successfully fought for the right to disconnect—for workers to knock off when they clock off and enjoy time with their friends and family, uninterrupted by unreasonable calls and messages from work. With the rapid increase in mobile device use over the past two decades, the boundaries between work and the rest of our lives have blurred. It's a problem that's been particularly exacerbated since the pandemic. No-one should feel they need to be available to their boss 24/7. When workers aren't able to find time for themselves and those they care for outside of work, it impacts their physical and mental health and relationships with others.

The debate that has engulfed the media in the past week has been inflamed by absurd and untruthful statements from employer groups and conservative politicians trying to paint vital workplace reforms as disastrous for business. The right to disconnect has not come out of the blue as the opposition leader claims. The Greens introduced a private member's bill in March last year to make changes to the Fair Work Act. It is grounded in research and based on agreements that are already in place in many Australian workplaces. It's been law in France since 2016 and has been taken up by many countries since then. It is a simple and straightforward right. The right to disconnect will make sure people have access to time with their family and friends. It is not going to destroy the economy as these flops claim. If the coalition want to go around promoting an economy based on unpaid labour and social isolation, good luck to them.

Eighty-one thousand taxpayers in my electorate of Chisholm will receive a tax cut under Labor's tax plan. That means four out of five taxpayers in Chisholm will receive a larger tax cut under our tax plan than under the previous plan. That means a single-income household in my electorate making $120,000 will receive a tax cut of $2,679. These tax cuts matter, and they'll make a real difference to the hardworking households in my electorate.

These tax cuts are about supporting aspiration and ensuring that there's more money in people's pockets so that they can support their ambitions. It's not lost on me that, for some families, our tax cuts mean the difference in whether or not they are able to enrol their children in music or dance lessons or pay registration fees for local sporting clubs. Labor's tax cuts support aspiration. We've always been the party of aspiration, and this is just the latest example of us doing what we can to ensure every family and household in this country is able to pursue opportunities for themselves. We've always been focused on helping people build a better future for themselves and their families, and I'm really proud that on this side of the House we're committed to making sure that more people keep the money that they work so hard to earn.

Today I rise to celebrate the generosity and resilience of our regional communities. Recently the Wangaratta and District Men's Shed in my electorate of Indi fell afoul of an online scam, robbing them of $25,000. This was money raised from donations and community events and included grant funding. It was money for much-needed upgrades and to ensure the men's shed could continue to play its important role in our local community. This was a devastating blow, and I was shocked to learn of it, but unfortunately this story is not uncommon. Scams are a growing and pervasive risk to individuals, businesses and community groups alike. More must be done to address this risk, and I was pleased to meet with the Consumer Action Law Centre last week on exactly this issue.

But I'm not going to speak about the scam today. I want to talk about what happened next. Shed members and the local community of Wangaratta have organised a GoFundMe page and will host a community market fundraiser this Sunday, 18 February. This is an opportunity for our dedicated and caring community to show how much they appreciate the men's shed. It will be held from 9 am to 1 pm at Shanley Street, Wangaratta. There will be more than 100 stalls, with delicious food and drinks, and all proceeds will go to the men's shed. I encourage everyone in north-east Victoria to head along to the market in Wangaratta this Sunday. It's for a great cause. Get behind our men's shed, and let's make good of this terrible situation.

The Pearce electorate has responded favourably to the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts. The cost of living has challenged us all, and our government is delivering more relief, with bigger tax cuts, for Middle Australia, while making our tax system fairer. In my electorate of Pearce, every single taxpayer will receive a tax cut under Labor's tax plan. Since the coalition's tax cuts were legislated five years ago, we have experienced a once-in-100-years pandemic, wars, global conflicts and spikes in high interest rates worldwide. I have not forgotten that the Morrison government was piling Australia in debt, which resulted in our government inheriting nearly a trillion dollars worth of debt. In contrast, we have introduced measures to help our communities, including cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, electricity bill relief, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk-billing, fee-free TAFE training, building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and getting wages moving again. Labor's tax cuts will make a real difference for the 13.6 million taxpayers who will receive a tax cut, 2.9 million more than would have benefited from Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago. So, no matter how hard those members opposite huff and puff, it is clear to all that the Albanese Labor government cares, is listening and is willing to put people before politics to deliver fairer and well-deserved tax cuts to Australian taxpayers when they need it the most.

Life is precious, and the love of true friends and family is priceless. One of my good friends was fighting for his life last week. He is not through it yet. When his dad, John Reinehr, told me that his son Sebastian might not make it, I said, 'What can I do?' and he said, 'Pray for him.' Sebastian Reinehr is intelligent, kind, thoughtful and passionate. I want to thank the doctors and nurses and staff at the Austin Hospital who have been looking after him—their respiratory team, their critical care unit, indeed our whole public hospital system. When we need it most, they're there, and they mean so much to all of us. I want to say to his father, John, his mother, Kathleen, and his siblings, Liz and Steve: we're here for you. Sebastian is a fan of William Butler Yeats. Yeats said this:

Think where man's glory most begins and ends,

And say my glory was I had such friends.

Sebastian, you are such a friend, and you have such friends. We are thinking of you, and you will get through this.

Labor's amendments to the stage 3 tax cuts represent a leap forward in our nation's journey towards economic fairness and social equity. They mean that 90 per cent—90 per cent!—of taxpayers in my electorate of Holt will get a larger tax cut than under the coalition, from fast food workers to IT professionals, from my former colleagues at Woolworths to migrants like my parents, who have journeyed to our shores. Only the Labor Party stands up for Australians who are doing it tough, and these changes are proof of that. Our plan will give all 13.6 million taxpayers a tax cut. It will mean that 2.9 million more people will receive a tax cut compared to Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago. This includes minimum-wage and part-time workers like many of our nation's youth. These workers, of whom I used to be one, received zero support under the coalition's plan. That's right—zero.

This is the difference between Labor and the coalition. The Labor Party is here to support every single person; the coalition is here to support only those in the top percentile of society.

I'm just going to remind members to use correct titles when referring to a member in this House and to just be quiet on the interjections.

Today I rise to extend a very big congratulations to the JUTE Theatre Company, a beacon of artistic brilliance in our community celebrating its 32nd year of operation. JUTE has just recently been awarded a four-year funding agreement through Creative Australia. This significant achievement not only marks a new chapter in JUTE's long history but also affirms its role as a cornerstone of cultural enrichment in our local community. Their successful application to the Four Year Investment for Organisations grant program is a testament to JUTE's exemplary artistic achievement and compelling vision for the future. JUTE has long played a key part in Cairns's cultural tapestry. Along with the rest of the community back home, we'll be looking forward to the new and exciting chapters ahead in this new allocation of funding. I'd like to commend Suellen Maunder, the artistic director and CEO of JUTE, and her team for their dedication and for providing high-quality art and theatre that continues to inspire and engage communities in the north, in the far north and right across Queensland. Congratulations again to all involved with the JUTE Theatre Company. Here's to the next four years!

This week, with every late night in the House we get one day closer to passing the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts—one day closer to Australians waking up to a tax plan that will see them keep more of what they earn. And, for the vast majority of Australians, they will wake up to a bigger, better, fairer tax cut than what those opposite felt they deserved. Deep down, this is probably still the case with those opposite.

These are tax cuts that mean, according to Australia Institute modelling, in my electorate of Spence each taxpayer is roughly $486 better off under our plan—the highest of all electorates in Australia. I make no apologies for giving our tax plan my full-throated support at every chance I can get. Those opposite shouldn't be one bit surprised that my electorate of Spence loves Labor's tax plans. I know those opposite love it too, because they have already announced that they are going to be voting for it. Low- and middle-income Australians are hoping the Liberal and National parties don't give in to their intrusive thoughts as this place gets closer to the finish line on this debate. We know what they really believe deep down, and that belief certainly was never directed toward low- and middle-income Australians, who are doing it tough and just want to keep more of what they earn. With wage growth at 15-year highs, they're earning more and keeping it too.

In closing, happy birthday to my beautiful niece, Sophia, for her sixth birthday today.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Elizabeth Raynor Worthington, who passed away on 10 January this year, just two months shy of her 80th birthday. I've often described Elizabeth and her husband, Ron, as my political parents. After a distinguished career in the RAAF, the Public Service and the LNP, Elizabeth took on what might have proven to be her most challenging role: being my campaign manager. That began eight years of frank and fearless counsel. Often it was more frank than it was fearless, but I relied on that counsel and on Elizabeth's foresight, kindness and savviness. She saw me through a preselection and three general elections and would offer advice on the referendum in the middle of her dialysis. Of late, her health deteriorated, and Elizabeth would constantly talk about finding a replacement, but I wouldn't have any of it. In her hospital room, just two days before her passing, we were still planning my next campaign. My family, the people of Fisher and indeed the nation are better for Elizabeth's friendship and her public service. I'm grateful for her, and I'm grateful to Ron, David, Shell, Roz, Andrew, Emma, Tina and Robert for sharing Elizabeth with the LNP and with me. Thank you, Elizabeth. I miss you. I miss you so much. Vale, Elizabeth Worthington. Rest in peace.

It's pretty simple: we want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and those opposite want people to work more for less. We support every single taxpayer receiving a tax cut, including the 95,000 hardworking people in the electorate of Macnamara. We know that people have been doing it tough and that they deserve to get a tax cut so they can have some breathing room.

And those opposite—do they support tax cuts for Australians? It's hard to say. The member for Farrer said, if the coalition wins the election, it will roll back whatever changes are made. The member for Farrer dug in and said, 'Well, this is our position. This is absolutely our position.' Now they say they will support the Albanese Labor tax cuts. This is classic Liberal Party: speak first, think later. Whatever they do, we know that, if they ever get back on the treasury benches, they'll be coming after the tax cuts for hardworking Australian people.

We want Australian people, especially those on a moderate and middle income, to keep more of what they earn. We don't want people to miss out—what former prime minister Scott Morrison wanted for middle-income Australians. We want all Australians to receive a tax cut. We stand with those who the Liberal Party wanted to miss out. We stand with those Australians; we want them to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

The cost of living is biting hard in my electorate of Hughes, as it is throughout Australia. I'm absolutely certain about this. I recently conducted an online survey throughout my electorate about the cost of living and, Deputy Speaker Claydon, I'm going to share with you what that revealed. Eighty-eight per cent of my electorate are finding it harder than normal to find the money to support their household, 54 per cent are facing mortgage stress, 74 per cent are struggling to afford groceries, 56 per cent have seen a 25 to 50 per cent rise in their energy bills and 64 per cent say that the cost of petrol is impacting their commute to work. Paying more than $2 a litre for petrol is really impacting. The average mortgage holder in Hughes is now paying more than $25,000 per year more than they were under the coalition government. The average renter is paying more than $100 per week more.

That is why I am so grateful to the people in my community who are helping those in need—people such as One Meal, which is a community meal service providing a nutritious meal once a week for people in need. I recently helped One Meal at Engadine, and I've been in touch with the One Meal people at Sutherland. I thank those volunteers for the awesome work that they are doing in our community. Many people that are now attending One Meal in my electorate are people who have never, ever before attended a food bank. These are families. I implore this government to do something about the cost of living in my electorate and throughout— (Time expired)

Could I say happy Valentine's Day on this lovely day. Even though my valentine of the last 32 years is about 4,000 kilometres away, where would I rather be than here with my colleagues! And happy Valentine's Day because isn't it lovely that, from 1 July this year, every single Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut. Australians know in their hearts that this is the right decision at the right time, made for all the right reasons, because it's no bed of roses out there at the moment. Labor's tax cuts are direct and effective cost-of-living support for Australians. Whether they've got a broken heart or a loved one at home, we know that in these tough times the Albanese Labor government is responding to the pressure that Australians are under right now.

Under the Morrison government tax plan, nearly three million Australian taxpayers did not receive that tax break. So they would be broken hearted. We know that the benefits particularly flowed to the city rather than the bush, so I'm sure that the National Party would be on board with our plan to make sure that the bush is looked after. I know, from doorknocking in my electorate over the last few weeks, everyone is positive about our plan to reward those 13.6 million Australians.

In the Grampians region of my electorate of Mallee, there were over 80 fires yesterday. One was in the adjoining electorate of Wannon, centring on the town of Pomonal, at one stage threatening the Mallee towns of Halls Gap, Bellfield and Lake Fyans. Another fire was centred in Dadswells Bridge in Mallee and has threatened Ledcourt, Roses Gap, Laharum, St Helens Plains and Wal Wal. At my last check, both fires had been downgraded to 'watch and act', which is a testament to the hard work of our firefighters and our easing conditions. I hope there is no further cause for alarm.

I want to place on record my appreciation for the Country Fire Authority volunteers and other emergency service volunteers who put their lives on the line. I am saddened that a handful of volunteer firefighters have been injured but heartened to hear reports that none of those injuries are considered serious. Reports are that a dozen homes and the Pomonal Uniting Church have been burned in the Pomonal fire—no such reports yet at the Dadswell Bridge fire. My heart goes out to all those who have lost their home, the church and their possessions. I understand relief centres are in place at Grampians Community Health Stawell, supported by the Salvation Army and Ararat. Go, our volunteers.

From 1 July, every single working Australian will get to keep more of what they've earned. That includes hardworking Middle Australia, who benefit from our tax cuts—people who were getting not much or nothing from the coalition's tax plan. A childcare worker in Bligh Park on $40,000 a year will get a $654 tax cut. Under the Liberal Party, they would have got zero. A maintenance worker at a Blue Mountains primary school on $50,000 will get a tax cut of $929 a year. A cook in aged care at Springwood or a home-care worker will get a tax cut of $1,166. Workers on $70,000 a year, like an admin worker at one of my Hawkesbury schools, will get a tax cut of $1,429. And teachers on 80 grand a year or a registered nurse in aged care will receive a tax cut of $1,679—double what they would have got under the Liberals.

Whether you're a cleaner, engineer, carpenter, retail worker, beautician or truck driver, you will get a tax cut from Labor on 1 July. That means there'll be more money in your pay packet. While the Liberals want people to work more and earn less, the Albanese government wants people to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

Today I released the first of three short videos produced over the summer recess to show the truth behind the live sheep export trade. I aim to combat the misinformation that has long been disseminated by activist organisations like Animals Australia. My videos feature interviews with farmers, stock agents, saleyard managers, export vessel veterinarians, stockies and many O'Connor community leaders—all affected by the pending end of the live export trade, all in limbo, waiting for the government's phase-out plan to be announced, 112 days after Minister Watt received the independent panel report Phase out of live sheep exports by sea.

Meanwhile, the very activist organisations who drove Labor's election commitment to end live exports are now peddling misinformation about the MV Bahijah, posting historical photographs of animal suffering that they paid for and potentially induced, misrepresenting healthy sheep on board. These activists have been running interference for the department of agriculture and supporting injunctions in destination markets like Israel, all to create an animal welfare crisis and solicit donations.

Federal cabinet is coming to WA next week. I invite the Prime Minister to visit my electorate, look the farmers of O'Connor in the eye and explain why Animal Justice and Green party preferences are more important than their livelihoods. I call on the wider community to join the fight for farmers and help save the WA sheep industry because this is a problem for every Western Australian, not just regional WA.

I congratulate the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on his workplace reforms this week. As a former business owner who has employed hundreds of people, I can categorically say that these reforms will improve and modernise our labour market. Unfortunately, as part of a scare campaign, the opposition have called these reforms extreme. Looking around the world at how different jurisdictions have responded to the gig economy, it's clear that claim is just wrong.

Australia's reforms are balanced. Many countries have introduced gig economy laws that are much more interventionist than Australia's new laws. Spain introduced the 2021 Rider Law, recategorising all platform workers as employees and completely eliminating that form of work. Canada, the UK and others struck down independent contracts and forced many gig economy workers to be reclassified as dependent contractors. Many countries have gone even further. Countries like Switzerland, Italy and Turkiye have banned platforms like Uber.

Looking around the world, it's clear that Australia's workplace reforms aren't extreme by international standards. They're sensible. In fact, they are world leading. Australia now has a framework which retains the best of the gig economy, including its flexibility, but also builds in basic protections. I commend the minister, the TWU and the many unions and workers who have advocated these balanced and necessary reforms.

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

In the last 24 hours nature has thrown everything at the people of Victoria—bushfires, extreme heat, wild winds, damaging storms and flash flooding. Tragically, in Gippsland the storms have claimed the life of a local farmer, and we offer our heartfelt condolences to everyone touched by this loss. I ask the member for Gippsland to please pass that on to his electorate. I'm sure by now all of us have seen those extraordinary images of the transmission towers near Geelong that have been flattened by the winds, leaving hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses without power. I know that the state government is working around the clock to deal with this situation, and the SES, as always, have been working hard throughout the night to provide assistance to people.

Even as parts of Melbourne have been battered by rain and hail, there are bushfires in the Grampians that are still burning out of control. The town of Pomonal has suffered the worst of it. Homes have been lost, as has the local church. At this stage, there has been no loss of life reported, which all of us desperately hope remains the case. Yesterday five CFA firefighters sustained minor injuries while working to protect properties in the area. We wish each of them a speedy recovery, and our thoughts are with all those engaged in the difficult and dangerous work of fighting these fires.

Everyone who has spent time in the Grampians and surrounds knows what a beautiful part of Australia it is. These towns facing the fire front are proud, tight-knit communities. People look out for their neighbours and they look after each other. As ever, in the worst of times, we are seeing the best of the Australian character. To all those who spent an anxious night in the Stawell community centre, the Haddon recreation centre or the Ararat emergency relief centre, we are thinking of you. To everyone in the area, please stay safe. Do everything you can to stay up to date with warnings and forecasts. Do not take risks. Please follow the advice of the local authorities. I know I speak for every member in this place when I say the Commonwealth is ready to do whatever we can to help Victorians through these hard days and to assist communities with the work of recovery. I thank the House.

I join with the Prime Minister and his fine words. Every summer our country is reacquainted with the horrors of bushfires. It is an inescapable reality, in our bush covered continent with its unforgiving climate, that we see these events. Sometimes we have seasons where the devastation is widespread. Other times the fury of the fires is, fortunately, not as fierce and the damage is more confined. But every year, somewhere, communities will be affected. Tragically, homes will be lost and people will be injured or killed.

The volunteers in our country are the true heroes. They provide support to Australians in a time of need, and that has been on display in Victoria over the course of recent hours. I want to join with the Prime Minister in acknowledging the terrible situation which continues to unfold in Victoria. The most severe warnings are in place around the Grampians, south of Horsham and west of Ararat. To the people in Pomonal, who have suffered significant devastation, and to all of those people, we send our prayers and best wishes. It appears almost all the fires which started yesterday were sparked by lightning strikes and fanned by high winds of up to 160 kilometres an hour. We know that one person has tragically died, a dairy farmer aged 50, who was found at Mirboo North. Our thoughts and profound condolences go to his family, friends and the community.

I echo the words of the Prime Minister in saying to Victorians: please be safe and heed the warnings from the authorities. The advice of the first responders, the police, the rural fire brigade, local councils and others who have up-to-date information should be heeded.

We really do honour all of those who have provided a contribution in the initial response. The rural fire brigade members put themselves into harm's way, and they literally save lives every year. They've done that again on this occasion. We wish them every success in making sure that they can arrest the harm that otherwise would be done to communities if they weren't so brave and present in the face of danger.

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. On 16 November in this place, the minister committed to the House that his department would make contact with all who had been victims of the criminals released from immigration detention by the government. Has the government now contacted all of the victims of the crimes committed by the 149 criminals it released from immigration detention?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I can assure him that my thoughts and, I'm sure, the thoughts of all members of this House are with those affected by the crimes of those who were detained and who were required to be released by reason of the order of the court. In the time following the High Court's decision, the department put in place a mechanism that would enable victims to be contacted. Obviously, there are some issues around personal privacy and other questions that need to be addressed in that, but it was very important that we put in place such a mechanism.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts help Australians with the cost of living? What has been the response to Labor's plans?

I thank the member for Boothby for her question. Of course, she supports every Australian taxpayer getting a tax cut—all 13.6 million of them, not just some—because the member for Boothby understands, due to her background in the social services sector, where she had a career helping people through organisations like St Vincent de Paul, that we can't leave people behind. That's why every single worker, whether they earn $45,000 or not, will get a tax cut as a result. Everyone below $45,000 will benefit from the reduction in that first rate from 19c down to 16c, and the good news is that that tax cut flows right through the income tax scales.

But we haven't left it there, because we also don't want to leave people behind. We want to support average workers. We want to support aspiration. That's why we've lifted the rate from $120,000 up to $135,000, where the 37 rate kicks in. That's why we've lifted the top rate from $180,000 to $190,000 as well. I note: it's the first increase in the top rate since 2008, when we occupied the Treasury benches as well.

It stands in stark contrast to what occurred when those opposite actually put in an increase in the top rate by introducing, without any notice, prior to an election, a so-called deficit levy on higher income earners at the same time as the Leader of the Opposition personally tried to put in a GP tax on every visit to the GP, a tax on everyone who visited a hospital and an increase in the cost of medicines while, at the same time, ripping $50 billion out of the health system.

But what we will do is: a shop assistant on $32,000 will get a $414 tax cut, instead of nothing. A nurse on $76,000 will get $1,579. A teacher on $80,000 will get $1,679. A police officer on $110,000 will get $2,429. And an IT manager on $160,000 will get $3,729. These tax cuts will make an enormous difference. And importantly, as well, they won't put pressure on inflation. We want people to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. What they want is for people to work longer for less. That's the great divide in Australian politics today. This side of the House understands that aspiration is what every Australian family has for themselves and for their kids.

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The minister advised the House in relation to the 149 criminals released from immigration detention, 'Each one of them is being continuously monitored.' But we know that at least 18 criminals have been arrested by state and territory police after committing crimes. How can the minister claim they have been continuously monitored if, in fact, they've been left to their own devices to commit crimes?

Order! The Minister for Social Services will cease interjecting.

Order! The member for Barker will cease interjecting as well so I can hear from the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

I thank the shadow minister for his question and I acknowledge the impact of the recent bushfires on the community he represents. As I've advised the House previously, because of the four layers of protection we've put in place—in particular, strict visa conditions including reporting requirements and, in the case of many, electronic monitoring—the location of every individual in this cohort is known. Unlike those opposite, I want to reassure Australians and remind them of what the AFP acting deputy commissioner said last night to Senate estimates. He said:

I don't think there's any difficulty in knowing where they are. They're monitored through the mechanism of those clauses which are placed upon them, which are quite restrictive.

On this side of the House we trust our law enforcement and thank them for their work in keeping Australians safe.

My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts ease pressure on Australians, including young people and working families, and what obstacles were overcome?

Thank you to the member for Aston. The member for Aston's only been here for a relatively short period of time, and already the member for Aston has helped ensure that every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut. Eighty-seven per cent of her community will get a bigger tax cut as a consequence of this important change.

Everyone gets a tax cut under the changes which are before the parliament. But what we are putting forward is a bigger tax cut for more people to help with cost-of-living pressures. Our tax changes are better for Middle Australia, better for women and better for the economy. They're also better for young people, better for working families and much, much better when it comes to the industries where we need more workers to power the future.

In percentage terms, the biggest generational beneficiaries are gen Z—younger people. Ninety-six per cent of younger people are even better off. The biggest beneficiaries in dollar terms are millennials—40 per cent of the total in dollar terms for people who are more likely to have young kids and young families. In the care economy, 97 per cent of workers will get a bigger tax cut, and we need more workers in the care economy.

Order! The member for Barker will cease interjecting.

In blue-collar industries like manufacturing and in the services sector, more than nine in every 10 workers will get a bigger tax cut.

Between today's question time and tomorrow's question time, the House will get the opportunity to vote on our cost-of-living tax cuts. After all of their huffing and puffing, red faced incoherence, breathless incompetence and nasty negativity, after they called for an election on the issue and after the shadow Treasurer equated bigger tax cuts for more people with Marxism, they now say that they're voting for our changes. What a humiliating capitulation!

When the time comes, this side of the House will vote for our tax changes enthusiastically. Those opposite will vote for them reluctantly. We know what they really think about these tax cuts, and that's because the deputy leader was asked if they'd roll them back if they win the election, and she said that was absolutely their position. They have abandoned Middle Australia in opposition, just as they abandoned them in government. The opposition leader wanted to boycott 200,000 Woolies workers. We all remember that. Then they tried to abandon 11½ million workers who will get a bigger tax cut.

They don't even pretend to care about the cost of living anymore. If they cared, they'd ask questions about it and they'd vote for it enthusiastically. For the best part of a decade, Middle Australia didn't get a look in. That changed under this Prime Minister and this government, and it revealed the defining difference between this side and that side. We want more Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn. They want people earning less and working longer for less.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and it is very specific. Minister, by what date will the export of live sheep to the Middle East be banned and by what date will the ban be legislated?

I thank the member for Clark very much for the question. I know that this is a topic he feels very passionately about, as do a number of his constituents and as do many across our community. Many of us represent areas where farmers are getting an income from live sheep export. Many of us also represent communities that feel very strongly about it being phased out.

This government supports strong animal welfare standards. We believe that animals must and should be treated humanely. We need to partner with the industry to shape a strong and sustainable future for the Australian sheep wool and sheepmeat industry. People earn their livelihoods from this sector. But we also know that we are implementing our commitment to phase out live sheep export in a considered and orderly way. That work is important. It's why the phase-out of live sheep export by sea will not occur during this term of parliament. An independent panel was appointed to consult with farming communities to inform when and how to implement this policy and to ensure that that industry continues to derive income from farming in their communities. That panel has concluded its work and its consultation and has provided that report to government. The government is considering that report. We are taking our time to properly assess all of the recommendations and the impact.

I am answering the question pretty directly.

I will listen to the member for Clark on a point of order.

Mr Speaker, it's on relevance. The question could not be more specific. Exactly what date will it be phased out and legislated?

As the member knows, as we have dealt with this issue, the minister has been talking about a range of time lines. You may want a specific date or answer, but under the standing order she is not required to necessarily do that. She is giving context and information about the time lines, so she is being directly relevant.

As I said, the government is taking the time to properly assess all of the recommendations in the report and to develop a response that honours the commitment that we have to phase out live sheep export but also understands that there are livelihoods involved in this process. I know that, having farmers in my own community whose livelihoods do not depend on this but it is part of it. They are seeing great work being done on renewables and getting income from having solar farms and wind farms in their electorate. They are really important issues.

The report will be made—

Opposition members interjecting—

I note the interjections—as are many farmers in your electorates as well. Nothing gets them going like renewables.

That report will then be made public. We are committed to delivering a considered and orderly transition that maximises the onshore job opportunities, particularly in Western Australia.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government providing cost-of-living relief to Australian Defence Force members and public servants in the Department of Defence, and how is the government's approach to decision-making different?

Order! The member for Herbert is warned.

I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her service. There are real challenges around recruitment and retention in the Defence Force, which is why this government has been particularly focused on improving the defence offering. We have introduced $50,000 retention bonuses. We have overseen the biggest wage increase for the Defence Force in more than a decade. All of this is now being coordinated at a three-star level by Lieutenant General Natasha Fox, the new chief of personnel. But one of the most important steps that we can take is to deliver a tax cut of every member of the Australian Defence Force, which is what we are doing. The average tax cut across the ADF is more than $2,300, and, when you add that to the wage increase for the average member of the ADF, they are more than $5,000 better off. This is real and practical action which is making a difference. The separation rate is starting to fall and, while it's early days, we are beginning to see recruitment numbers turn around.

This action stands in stark contrast to the vaudeville show which was put on display by those opposite over more than a decade. In their final years, the ADF was losing members, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Defence. His solution was hoopla. It was to put on a show—a big announcement about increasing the Defence Force by 18½ thousand people, a commitment which was hopelessly underfunded. It was total fantasy, make-believe money, because they were always about the politics; they were never about the policy. They talked a big game about being the party of defence but their real interest in defence was raising political funds for their party.

Recently, we've seen them wandering around saying that, if they were ever asked, they would send ships to the Red Sea, but what has now been revealed is that when they were asked they said no. And the defence of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the minister, is that he didn't even know a request had been made, which is absolutely astonishing. But, then again, he was always the 'Minister for Defence Politics', so we probably shouldn't be surprised that defence policy never made it onto his radar.

The government which is delivering real tax benefits, which has delivered a budget surplus and which is keeping our nation safe is the Albanese Labor government.

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The minister advised the House in relation to the 149 criminals released from immigration detention that each one of them is being continuously monitored. But we now know that the minister has exempted 36 of them from continuous ankle monitoring. On what basis did the minister claim they are being continuously monitored? Why did the minister mislead the House?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! We will hear from the Leader of the House.

Speaker, the last part of that question should be withdrawn. That's an allegation that can only be made by substantive motion.

We're going to rule that part out. If the shadow minister, or deputy, believes that's the case, she can state the question 'has the minister', not just simply state the question.

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. As I just said to the question asked by the member for Wannon, because of the entirety of the four layers of protection, at least one of which applies to every member of the cohort—strict visa conditions, which include, of course, reporting requirements, as you would be well aware, as well as electronic monitoring for the majority and curfews for many—the location of every individual in this cohort is known.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will nurses and other health professionals benefit from Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts? How do the tax cuts build on the investment the government is making to strengthen Medicare, and why are these investments so important after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right and left will cease interjecting.

I thank the member for Bendigo for her question, because there are 66,000 taxpayers in her electorate who on 1 July will receive a tax cut to help with the cost of living—every single one of them; not some but every single one of them—and many of those taxpayers are working in health, including at the Bendigo and St John of God hospitals in the member's electorate. On 1 July a third-year registered nurse at the Bendigo hospital will receive a tax cut of more than $1,550, which is more than double what they would have received under the plan from those opposite. A trainee enrolled nurse will receive a tax cut of $937—

The member for Barker is warned.

compared to just $133, which is what they would've received under those opposite. This is helping hardworking health and hospital workers not only earn more but keep more of what they earn.

These bigger, better tax cuts for middle Australia build on a range of other measures we've been putting in place to help with the cost of living, like more support for bulk-billing. When we came to government, bulk-billing—in particular, for GP visits—was in freefall, and that slide can be traced directly back to the Leader of the Opposition's time as the health minister. His first budget glossy as health minister a decade ago said:

From 1 July 2015, previously bulk-billed patients can expect to contribute … towards the cost of standard GP consultations and out-of-hospital pathology and imaging services.

That was his plan to abolish bulk-billing altogether, and, when he couldn't get it through the Senate, he instead kicked off a years-long freeze to the Medicare rebate that literally ripped billions and billions of dollars out of general practice.

That is not our plan. For Labor, bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare, and that's why in the budget last year we tripled the incentive for bulk-billing, something the GPs college described as a game changer. In the first two months of operation of those new arrangements, Australians have seen more than 360,000 additional free visits to the GP, and no member of this House has promoted those investments more strongly than the member for Bendigo. She has been advertising it widely and talking to every single general practice in her electorate, and her community has reaped the benefits of her hard work, with an eight per cent increase in bulk-billing in just two months. That is 9,000 additional free visits to the general practitioner in just two months, saving hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in gap fees.

John Howard called bulk-billing an absolute rort. The Leader of the Opposition tried to abolish it altogether. But, for Labor, bulk-billing is the beating heart of a strong Medicare. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Is the minister seriously suggesting that a rapist is continuously monitored because they have periodic reporting requirements?

Honourable members interjecting—

I will allow the question. Given the way it was phrased, I just wanted to make sure it was relevant to the minister's portfolio.

As I have repeatedly informed the House, because of the four layers of protection that we have put in place and because of the arrangements that we have stood up, including Operation AEGIS, which is enabling the coordination, of course it is the case that we are able to know the location of every individual in this cohort. I remind the member, as I said a moment ago, of what the Australian Federal Police acting deputy commissioner said last night:

I don't think there's any difficulty in knowing where they are.

That's the whole cohort. He also said:

… they're monitored through the mechanism of those clauses that are placed upon them, which are quite restrictive.

We support the work of our law enforcement agencies, and we also have confidence in the trusted officials of the Community Protection Board, who are providing advice to government on this cohort.

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering better tax cuts to support those living in my community and all across regional Australia? Why are these tax cuts better for regional Australians than other policies on offer?

I thank the member for Hunter for what is a great question. The Albanese government is, indeed, delivering tax cuts to Australians living in our regions, which is putting more money back into the pockets of regional Australians. In the member's own electorate of Hunter that means all 73,000 taxpayers in Hunter will receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,560 on 1 July.

As of 1 July, it will be a good day for taxpayers in the member's electorate, but it will also be a good day for taxpayers across all of our regions. In Whitlam, we've got 73,000 taxpayers getting a tax cut, and 87 percent will be getting a bigger tax cut. In Lingiari, we've got 43,000 taxpayers getting a tax cut, and 86 per cent are getting a bigger tax cut under the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts. In the great electorate of Eden-Monaro, we've got 75,000 taxpayers getting a tax cut, and 85 per cent are getting a bigger tax cut. And, in Flynn, 66,000 taxpayers are all getting a tax cut, with 82 per cent getting a bigger tax cut. All across regional Australia and indeed across the nation, there's more money going back into the pockets of workers under this government. We're delivering these tax cuts for every Australian to help with the cost of living. That relief is exactly what our tax cuts for Middle Australia are designed to do, without putting pressure on inflation.

You might have thought that better tax cuts for Middle Australia and better tax cuts for those who live in the regions would be something where there would be a unity ticket across the parliament. Unfortunately, not everyone shares our view. On this side of the House, we want to make sure that people earn more and get to keep more of what they earn. Those opposite, we know, want people to work longer for less. The Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition and the Nationals have made clear that they really do not want these tax cuts for middle Australia. I've been watching the debate in the parliament, and I've been listening closely to speaker after speaker on the opposition's side, and they really, really don't want to support this. You can hear that from their speeches and their contributions.

The Liberals and Nationals are so addicted to voting against cost-of-living relief in their own communities they voted against energy relief for working Australians, voted against cheaper child care, voted against cheaper medicines and voted against cheaper health care. They voted against any cost-of-living measure that this government has put in place, and those in regional Australia deserve much better than that.

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Albanese government has released 149 criminals from immigration detention. Last night at senate estimates, the AFP was unable to confirm if any of those murderers or rapists the minister has released are among those who've committed new crimes. Minister, have any of the seven murderers, 37 sex offenders or 72 other violent criminals released committed a new offence?

I raise a point of order in relation to standing order 100(d)(iii) and (iv), in relation to inferences and imputations in that question. The release of these detainees was made as a result of the High Court decision. That's not reflected in the question.

We have dealt with this matter before. It's not my role to give judgement on whether statements are accurate or not. The minister will be able to refer to whether the question he believes was accurate, or whether he has a view, or any minister has a view, on the accuracy of the statement made. While I appreciate the member for Warringah's point, these sorts of questions have been asked for some time, and it was dealt with last year as well. On the point of order, the member for Warringah?

I appreciate that. I just want to clarify that, in the standing orders, 100(d)(iii) and 100(d)(iv) specifically refer to the fact that questions must not contain inferences or imputations. Is it the chair's ruling that there are no inferences or imputations in that question?

It's a statement by the member asking the question about their interpretation and view. The minister in his or her response may be able to deal with that inference in the question. The minister for each question has been dealing with that, and I'm allowing him to address the question. But I'm simply not in a state to adjudicate on every single statement by every single member on whether I believe it's accurate or not. The person answering the question shall deal with that. On the point of order?

In that case there is no point in having that section in the standing orders. It is there for a reason. In that section, if I could just point out, 'Rules for questions', 100(d)(iii) and 100(d)(iv)—I'd invite members to read the standing orders—it is clear that it is intended that inferences and imputations should not be included in questions. It's not a question of ruling whether or not one accepts that they're there; the standing orders make clear that they 'must not contain'. It's not a question of saying whether the chair feels that there is a negative imputation. The standing orders are clear. So, I'm just raising the question of the standing orders.

I appreciate the member's interest and I appreciate her raising the point of order. The difficulty for me as chair is that I would start ruling out nearly every question if that was the case. We did have a similar issue raised by a question yesterday on the crossbench. As someone who tries to allow as many questions as possible on behalf of the constituents they represent, I agree that it does place me in a difficult position. But I appreciate the member raising the question. I give the call to the minister.

Of course it was the case that it was the decision of the High Court overturning two decades of precedent that required the release of the detainees, the subject of this, as the member well knows—or should well know.

One of the many aspects of our government's response, always focused on community safety, was putting in place criminal penalties for breaches of the strict visa conditions we've put in place. Of course, how these breaches are dealt with is a matter for the Australian Federal Police, and breaches of other state or territory laws are matters for the relevant law enforcement authorities, and we have confidence in all of them to do their job.

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How are the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations reforms helping Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn? And what has been the response to these reforms?

I thank the member for Moreton. There's no doubt that the member for Moreton is someone who, from the time he arrived here, has wanted the workers of Queensland to be earning more and to be keeping more of what they earn. Comparing that—

Opposition members interjecting—

If you talk about workers earning more—Pavlov did a study like this—there's a reaction immediately. The reaction is there straightaway.

But those opposite, in contrast to the member for Moreton, try as hard as they can to never commit to anything. It took Andrew Clennell on Sky News to finally get the Leader of the Opposition to make a commitment on workplace relations, where he committed straightaway in saying he wanted to make sure people would be able to work longer for less. That's the one principle he was willing to defend straightaway. Within about an hour, the shadow Treasurer said that they would have a targeted package of appeals. Well, looking at the measures that have been passed since we came to government, which ones do they intend to target? Will they target minimum standards for gig workers? Will they target minimum standards in road transport? Will they target job security for casuals? Will they target wage theft being a crime? Will they target the banning of pay secrecy clauses? Or will they target the sunsetting of zombie agreements?

On those zombie agreements we've recently had a window into exactly how bad they have been for workers, if you look at some of the franchises in Queensland, such as Hog's Breath cafe. Until this year, until laws were passed which those opposite opposed, people working for those Hog's Breath cafe franchises in parts of Queensland were on agreements that dated back to 2005. For context, that means that an 18-year-old waiter at Hog's Breath had wages and conditions that were set in an agreement registered before they were born. Under these agreements there were no penalty rates, no overtime, no leave loading and a lower casual loading. And it was calculated that they were, on average, $59 a week worse off.

Because of the change of government, because of the government's policies, which those opposite opposed, those workers now are paid that $59 again. They are also covered by an award where they now earn $100 a week more under this government. And, thanks to this government, those same workers will now also be eligible for a tax cut of more than $1,050. Fifty-nine dollars through the IR changes, $100 through our approach to the annual wage review and more than $1,000 a year in tax cuts—all policies supported by us over here that just make those opposite angry. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. New Queensland Labor Premier Steven Miles has just approved two new coalmines in two weeks—coalmines that would produce more greenhouse gas pollution than Australia's entire annual emissions. Minister, will you stop these coalmines?

I thank the member for her question and remind her that, firstly, I can't comment on any individual project and, secondly, this government has done more to act on climate change during our short time in office than any previous Australian government. This includes when we were last in government, when the Greens political party teamed up with the Liberals and the Nationals to knock off action on climate change.

The truth hurts, doesn't it? The most important thing we've done to get Australia on that trajectory to net zero, which we are so committed to on this side of the chamber, is introduce the safeguard mechanism. The crossbench and the Greens political party supported the safeguard mechanism when it was introduced. In fact, your environment spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, said:

… a hard cap on emissions, meaning real pollution must actually come down and the coal and gas corporations can't buy their way out of the cap with offsets. This puts a limit on coal and gas expansion in Australia. Pollution will now go down, not up.

That's the safeguard mechanism that you negotiated, you voted for, you supported and we support, because it takes Australia on that pathway to net zero.

Just on the issue of emissions: obviously, one of the areas where we are making enormous inroads on this side is in the transformation that will lead Australia to becoming a renewable energy superpower—again, something that we on this side are absolutely committed to doing. In my time as environment minister, I have so far ticked off 42 renewable energy projects, which is the equivalent of powering two million homes in Australia.

The Treasurer has asked me how many renewable energy projects are in Sydney. I can tell you Australia has one of the greatest penetrations of rooftop solar anywhere in the world—3.6 million Australian homes. Ordinary Australians have realised that cheaper, cleaner renewable energy is good for the family budget and good for the environment. That's why we've set our target of 82 per cent renewable energy, and we're well on track to meeting that.

I'll leave the honorary member with this thought: a decade of fighting about climate change has led nowhere. We're committed to action. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts help families across Australia, including those that benefit from Labor's Cheaper Child Care policy. Why are these measures so important?

I thank the member for Hawke for his question. The member for Hawke understands—just as every member on this side of the House who has stood up to speak about the Albanese government's tax cuts and who has asked a question this week about cost of living understands—that cost of living is the No.1 issue for families across Australia. Of course, we knew that before we came to government. That's why the Prime Minister pledged to take action to relieve cost-of-living pressures for families in Australia. That's why, in government, we're not just talking about cost-of-living pressures; we're taking action to deliver cost-of-living relief. That's why we delivered cheaper child care for more than a million families across Australia, including, I might say, 6,800 families in the member for Hawke's electorate.

I'm pleased to report that the ACCC review confirmed that our Cheaper Child Care reforms reduce out-of-pocket costs for families for centre based care by an average of 11 per cent. According to the ACCC report, a family earning $80,000 with a child in care for three days a week will have saved $1,351.80 in early childhood learning fees. And we're building on that. We're delivering more cost-of-living relief through our better tax cuts for every Australian, including families. Under our plan, someone earning $80,000 will get a tax cut of $1,679. That's over $3,000 a year —real money going back into the pockets of middle Australians in the suburbs, in the bush, in the city and in the regions. It's for all Australians, and that's on top of other measures: cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, energy bill relief—all part of our comprehensive plan to tackle cost-of-living pressures whilst balancing downward pressure on inflation.

That's the difference. That's the difference between a government that is prepared to take action, that has a plan for cost-of-living relief and that wants people to earn more and to keep more of what they earn and an opposition that wants to keep people working longer for less. (Time expired)

I seek leave to move the following motion immediately:

That this House:

(1) notes that the first duty of a government is to keep Australians safe, and that the Government has failed this duty;

(2) further notes the Minister for Immigration's numerous failings in his response to the High Court decision in NZYQ, including failing to:

(a) keep hardcore criminals locked up;

(b) know where released detainee criminals are;

(c) prevent 18 criminals so far, committing further offences leading them to being arrested by state or territory police;

(d) conduct continuous monitoring that would prevent criminals from committing further criminal offences;

(e) place any of the released criminals into preventative detention despite seven murderers, 37 sex criminals and 72 violent offenders being at large in the community; and

(f) provide timely and accurate information to the Australian people about the nature and location of the 149 criminals at large in the community; and

(3) calls upon the Prime Minister to dismiss this incompetent Minister who has proven entirely inadequate to the task of keeping Australians safe.

Is leave granted?

Leave is not granted. We want to talk about the cost of living.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion—That this House:

(1) notes that the first duty of a government is to keep Australians safe, and that the Albanese Government has failed this duty;

(2) further notes the Minister for Immigration's numerous failings in his response to the High Court decision in NZYQ, including failing to:

(a) keep hardcore criminals locked up;

(b) know where released detainee criminals are;

(c) prevent 18 criminals so far, committing further offences leading them to being arrested by state or territory police;

(d) conduct continuous monitoring that would prevent criminals from committing further criminal offences;

(e) place any of the released criminals into preventative detention despite seven murderers, 37 sex criminals and 72 violent offenders being at large in the community; and

(f) provide timely and accurate information to the Australian people about the nature and location of the 149 criminals at large in the community; and

(3) calls upon the Prime Minister to dismiss this incompetent Minister who has proven entirely inadequate to the task of keeping Australians safe.

This minister has to go. This weak Prime Minister needs to show leadership and get rid of—

Government members interjecting—

Resume your seat. Order! Members on my right!

The member for Boothby will cease—

The member for Macarthur is warned. This is not a free-for-all.

Under standing order 47(e), I require that the suspension be dealt with by the House following the MPI.

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. How does the Richardson review build on previous reviews regarding the administration of the Home Affairs portfolio and Australia's immigration system?

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Bean was heard in silence.

Leader of the Opposition, I'm trying to call the minister.

I want to thank the brilliant member for Bean for his very good question. The Richardson review, which was released this week, is a damning indictment of the failures of the Leader of the Opposition. For most of us in this place, just one report of this kind would be absolutely devastating.

The member for Page is warned.

This is a report that shows us that the Leader of the Opposition oversaw hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars being funnelled into companies which were involved in drug smuggling, arms trafficking, money laundering and human trafficking. To have so fundamentally failed in your duty to the Australian people! How do you come back from that?

But, of course, for the Leader of the Opposition it's not just the Richardson review. Three reports from three eminent Australians—Martin Parkinson, Christine Nixon and Dennis Richardson—have now found that the Leader of the Opposition's public record is littered with systems that he has wrecked and destroyed. Martin Parkinson's review, which I have here, describes the migration system as being fundamentally broken, and he has said that this occurred because of a decade of deliberate neglect by those opposite. The Nixon review found that, for all the bluff and bluster—

The minister will not use props during her answer.

The Nixon review found that, for all the bluff and bluster that went into being tough on borders, the Leader of the Opposition catastrophically failed to manage our migration system, leading to career criminals and people who were known human traffickers coming into the country under the Leader of the Opposition's watch and hurting Australian people. Where is the accountability for this? Then, of course, the Richardson review, as we know, demonstrates that, on the watch of the Leader of the Opposition, hundreds of millions of dollars was taken from the constituents of every single one of us in this chamber and given to companies that went on to commit horrible crimes. What we have before us is hundreds of pages that tell that us that all the Leader of the Opposition knows how to do is wreck, divide and destroy.

But, of course, it's not just his time in Home Affairs. It's not just my portfolio and the messes that I'm cleaning up. Remember that, when the Leader of the Opposition was health minister, he was voted by doctors as being the worst health minister in living memory. That was before he tried to cut $50 billion out of our hospital network. In Defence, for all the explosive rhetoric, what we saw was the Leader of the Opposition presiding over delayed defence projects to the tune of 97 years late.

What do we hear from the Leader of the Opposition in countering all of these very well-substantiated claims about him?

The member for Groom will remain silent for the remainder of this answer.

We hear crickets. That's because this is a tough guy who doesn't want to answer the tough questions. There is one question that matters more than all: when he cannot run a government department, why does he think he should run our country?

My question is to the Treasurer. Two of our nation's most respected economists, Professors Sims and Garnaut, have today put forward a bold plan they say can lower global carbon emissions by at least six per cent, would deliver much cheaper power bills and would supercharge a new green export industry here which would set up Australia's prosperity in the new global economy for decades. With the worst of the coalition climate wreckers of the Nemesis era all but wiped out, isn't it time a carbon levy was back on the table?

I say to the member for Mackellar: unfortunately, there are still a few of them here, and that's because you guys can only knock them off one at a time! I agree that Professors Sims and Garnaut are very distinguished economists and very distinguished thinkers. They are well-motivated and well-informed contributors to this debate—as well, I might say, as is the member for Mackellar herself. We share the objective of a future increasingly powered by cleaner, cheaper and more renewable energy into the future because this side of the House believes in the vast industrial and economic opportunities of the net zero economy.

Where we differ from the distinguished thinkers at the Press Club today is that we are not up for the levy that Professor Sims and Professor Garnaut proposed at the Press Club today. Part of the reason for that is that we've found a better way—or at least an alternative way, but we feel it's a better way—to implement what is already a comprehensive and ambitious agenda when it comes to clean energy, when it comes to climate change and when it comes to those industrial opportunities from becoming a renewable energy superpower. Here I want to pay tribute to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for his work in his portfolio. I also want to say, as the environment minister implied a moment ago, he works closely with the Prime Minister, with the Minister for the Environment and Water, with the Minister for Industry and Science, with the Minister for Resources and with others to make sure that we grasp the opportunities of the net zero economy.

Our plan includes lifting our country's emission reduction targets from 26 per cent to 43 per cent. We've enshrined those targets and our net zero objective in law, which sends a message to renewable energy investors around the world that Australia has changed and is open to welcoming more investment in clean energy on our shores. On top of those targets, we've got the safeguard mechanism. We've given it teeth. We've got the Capacity Investment Scheme. We've got $20 billion for transmission via Rewiring the Nation. We've got the $2 billion in Hydrogen Headstart. We've got a whole range and a whole raft of policies when it comes to climate change and energy. These policies are already accounted for in the budget.

Our policy suite is already helping to drive down emissions and support jobs across the economy, including in the industrial and energy sector. Minister Bowen's last climate change statement showed that our approach means that we are now on track to deliver— (Time expired)

The member for Fairfax interjected eight times during that answer. He is warned.

My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How will Labor's tax cuts help tradies as they work to deliver the Albanese government's broad and ambitious housing agenda, and why is this so important?

I want to thank the member for Holt for her question. I know that she's very supportive of our ambitious housing agenda, particularly in her electorate, and I look forward to visiting her electorate as we start to get more homes on the ground.

We know how vital our tradies are going to be to building the homes that the country needs. Indeed, they're essential for our government's ambitious housing agenda. That's why Labor is ensuring that all of our tradies are going to get a tax cut. Labor's tax cuts will let our hardworking tradies keep more of what they earn. Those opposite want people to work for longer, for less, but we want tax cuts for our tradies—for our sparkies, for our chippies. For most tradies, they'll be getting a bigger tax cut under Labor than under the plan of those opposite.

It's important, particularly, for apprentices in the housing sector. We all know we need more tradies to get our houses up. For an apprentice on the average taxable income of $40,000, they'll be getting a tax cut of $654. Under the coalition's plan, of course, they'd be getting absolutely zero, nothing. Our tradies, particularly the apprentice tradies, need this tax cut for their cost of living. We want to support our tradies. That's why we're making sure our tradies are all getting a tax cut.

As I said earlier in the week, a sparky on an average taxable income of $101,000 will be getting a tax cut of $2,262. A plumber on an average taxable income of $79,000 will be getting a tax cut of $1,730. A carpenter on an average taxable income of $72,000 will be getting a tax cut of $1,563. Our tradies are getting larger tax cuts under Labor's plan because we want to make sure our tradies are there to deliver on our housing agenda. We need our tradies to clean up the mess that we've been left in the housing sector by those opposite.

We have serious housing challenges in our country, and those opposite have done nothing about supporting what we're trying to do to address them. We've already supported 4,937 homes through Housing Australia since we came to office, and we'll have thousands more, with applications currently open for the first round of the Housing Australia Future Fund and the National Housing Accord. And, of course, we've got 4,000 new social homes coming from the Social Housing Accelerator.

Since we came to office, we have committed $25 billion in new housing funding over the next decade because we want to turn around this housing challenge. We know those opposite have been all over the place. They know they're not supporting our tradies who need a tax cut. Indeed, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition over there said that they would roll back Labor's tax cuts. We want to make sure that people get to keep more of what they earn. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Albanese government has released 149 criminals from immigration detention. The Australian Federal Police, in evidence to Senate estimates last night, revealed that a number of these criminals have been arrested multiple times. Minister, why has the government so far failed to apply for even one community safety order to lock these people up? Why is the government instead running a 'catch and release' program?

I thank the member for Riverina for the question, and I take the opportunity to remind him, of course, that it was the decision of the High Court that required the release of the detainees who were the subject of his question. I remind him that, as well as following the decisions of the court, our top priority always is keeping the community safe. I remind him, as a senior member of the former government, that the regime that we've put in place is modelled on the former government's high-risk terror offenders scheme. I remind him, as I reminded the House yesterday, that the shadow minister for home affairs, and indeed the member for Wannon, have reminded all of us that there is a very high legal threshold to be met for a court to agree to ongoing detention. I remind him, too, that it took the opposition three years after passing their legislation to make their first application before the court. And, Speaker, I reassure you and I reassure the House that we are preparing applications. We are making sure, as evidence in Senate estimates made clear, that we are putting in place the resources and the processes to get it right, because it is in no-one's interest to have a half-baked application that doesn't succeed. Our focus is on doing the things that keep people safe.

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts deliver a bigger benefit to workers in the resources sector and in northern Australia?

Thank you to the very hardworking member for Pearce for her question. On 1 July, the Albanese government will deliver a tax cut to every single Australian taxpayer and to taxpayers right across the great seat of Pearce. There will be 13.6 million Australians better off. Workers in the resources sector and right across the great north of our country will be better off.

The average wage of the resources sector across this nation is $144,600. Labor's tax changes will deliver them a tax cut of over $3,700. We know the extraordinary incomes of those in the C-suites of the resources sector, who also get a tax cut, skews this average. This means that the absolute majority of resources sector workers will be better off under Labor's tax changes than the proposal of five years ago by the former PM, who was of course also the resources minister at the time. After a prolonged episode of flip-flopping from those opposite, I am glad the coalition have agreed to finally support the aspirations of resources workers and mining communities right across the country. It's about time.

Opposition members interjecting—

I can hear the leader and the former leaders of the National agrarian socialists over there having a crack. What have you ever done?

I want to remind everyone that it takes anywhere between 500 and 1,000 workers to keep a coalmine in the Hunter or an iron ore mine in the Pilbara operating. Among the many jobs on these mines, there are geologists, mining engineers and metallurgists, all of whom are getting a tax cut. And it's especially the younger workers in the sector. Younger workers are so important to the ongoing strength of this industry. A graduate geophysicist on an average income of $90,000 will get a tax cut of over $1,900. A graduate geologist on an average income of $95,000 will get a tax cut of over $2,000.

There are also cooks, kitchen hands and cleaners that keep the great wealth-creating industry of this country running. I know none of you opposite have ever run into any of them, but we do. On any given mine in this country, cooks on an average income of $89,000 will get a tax cut of over $1,900. Kitchen hands on an average income of $80,000 will get a tax cut of over $1,600. And cleaners, the cleaners that keep these mines going and keep workers happy, on an average income of $75,000, will get a tax cut of over $1,500. Under Labor, resources workers earn more and resources workers will keep more of what they earn.

I remind the minister under standing order 65(a) to address her remarks through the chair.

The member for Bruce will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Bruce then left the chamber.

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Of the people that his department and the AGS have identified as likely meeting the test in the NZYQ case, is everyone on bridging visa R, or has the minister released any of the NZYQ cohort on other visas since 16 November 2023?

We have complied with the orders of the court and complied with the law.

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to protect Australians from the scourge of investment scams? Why is this so important?

I thank the amazing member for Swan for this question. I remember fondly the meeting that we had in her electorate. I think it was in Forrestfield. There were hundreds of people there very engaged in the issue. I've got to say, Member for Swan, the interest you've shown in this issue is in complete contrast to those opposite. It's been over nine months since they've had a shadow spokesperson for consumer affairs or financial services. We can only draw the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition thinks there's nobody on that side who's good enough to do the job.

If you want to be a party that represents and aspires to represent the interests of Middle Australia, you want to ensure that Middle Australian are earning more, keeping more of what they earn and keeping their money safe. Our scams agenda is about ensuring that we keep Australians' money safe, particularly in the area of investment scams. It's a big job to do. Because of the complete indifference and indolence of the member for Deakin when he had my job, scams were growing at $3 billion a year. They doubled, then they doubled again, and they were on course to double by another $3 billion. I'm pleased to inform members of the House that we have arrested that growth because of the comprehensive policy we've put in place. It's a team job between myself, the Minister for Communications and the Minister for Home Affairs working comprehensively across the economy. It is important that we ensure that scammers know we're taking them on.

Phase 1 is already in place. The National Anti-Scam Centre is already up and running; ASIC has been funded to pull down fake investment websites; and the work that the Minister for Communications is doing is blocking over a million SMS scams going through each month. It's sensational work.

There's more work to come. Phase 2 is already underway, and this is about ensuring that new codes of practice are in place to ensure tougher obligations on banks, on telecommunications companies and on social media platforms as well.

We also want to ensure that Australians get access to affordable, qualified and helpful advice. That's why we're putting in place reforms in the area of financial advice—to ensure that Australians can get access to qualified advice instead of having to go to Instagram, TikTok or Facebook, which is what they were doing under those opposite.

The Assistant Treasurer will pause.

A point of order, Mr Speaker: it's really good the government has found one of the people—

Resume your seat.

Honourable members interjecting—

No. It's really simple. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does get latitude because of her position, and she knows that, but she's abused that latitude by just getting up and giving a point of order, which I specifically explained to the member for Wannon yesterday, who's been here for 14 years. The member has been here for 23 years, and if it continues I won't take the point of order; you'll be ignored. So that's the last time someone's going to make that point of order. If it continues, I won't take them. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Farrer then left the chamber.

The member for McEwen is warned.

They're angry because they left us with a mess, and their incompetence has meant that we've got a big job to clean it up. We're doing it with teamwork across the government, as opposed to the nemesis that we saw on that side. (Time expired)

Given there have been no questions, again, on cost of living from those opposite, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I present the amended report of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 26 February 2024. Copies of the updated report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 13 February 2024.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 13 February 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 26 February 2024, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 DR HAINES: To present a Bill for an Act to reform the governance, performance and accountability of grants, Investment Mandates and use of public resources, and for related purposes. (Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024)

(Notice given 12 February 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

2 MS STEGGALL: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and for related purposes. (Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 Forever and Protect Our Coastal Waters) Bill 2024)

(Notice given 13 February 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

3 MR WILKIE: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the conduct of Australian airlines has recently come under fire for a variety of practices, such as sometimes only offering Frequent Flyer and discount tickets one way, meaning customers are stuck with expensive tickets the other way, increasingly frequent flight delays and cancellations, and the linkage of passenger personal profiles to the fares offered to them;

(b) seeking refunds and other assistance for cancelled flights often leaves consumers feeling underwhelmed, with many offered little to no compensation for flight disruptions;

(c) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is concerned about the high level of complaints about airlines as well as their low reliability of services;

(d) Australian airline staff are among the best in the world, yet bear the brunt of increasingly frustrated customers because of improper decisions by management within airline companies; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) accept the ACCC's recommendations made in its submission to the Australian Government's Aviation Green Paper;

(b) establish an independent airline ombudsman with the power to make binding decisions, to allow for fair and efficient resolution of customer complaints; and

(c) establish a targeted and fit-for-purpose compensation scheme for delayed and cancelled flights.

(Notice given 13 February 2024.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Wilkie 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

4 MR PASIN: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Australia's severe and intense weather events over recent years have placed immense pressure on the nation's regional, rural, and remote road network;

(b) the Australian Local Government Association estimates that the cost of repairing and replacing flood impacted roads is at least $3.8 billion in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria alone; and

(c) the Government has scrapped the specifically targeted Bridges Renewal Program and Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program which, when combined, were valued at $193.5 million per annum by 2026-27;

(2) acknowledges that the federal budget saw financial assistance grants to local government cut as a percentage of tax revenue from 0.52 per cent to 0.50 per cent in stark contrast to councils' long-term aim of achieving 1.0 per cent of tax revenue; and

(3) calls on the Government to invest in Australia's regional rural and remote road network to support local governments, improve road safety and freight productivity.

(Notice given 6 February 2024.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Pasin 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1 BETTER AND FAIRER EDUCATION SYSTEM: Resumption of debate (from 12 February 2024) on the motion of Dr Reid—That this House acknowledges the Government's commitment and actions to build a better and fairer education system from early education right through to university, by:

(1) delivering cheaper child care which is making early education and care more affordable for 1.2 million Australian families;

(2) tackling the teacher shortage through the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan;

(3) delivering $275.2 million to schools to improve school infrastructure through the Schools Upgrade Fund;

(4) providing $203.7 million in funding to support student wellbeing across every school in the country through the Student Wellbeing Boost;

(5) working with state and territory governments to get all schools on a path to full and fair funding; and

(6) setting the higher education system up for the future through the Universities Accord, and implementing the priority actions of the accord interim report, which delivers:

(a) an additional 20 new regional university study hubs and 14 suburban university study hubs;

(b) demand driven places for First Nations students from metropolitan areas;

(c) the removal of the unfair 50 per cent pass rule; and

(d) university governance reforms.

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 DR M RYAN: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that public perceptions of the pervasive influence that lobbyists have over political decision-making have worsened in recent years;

(2) recognises that there is presently no consistent or visible way of knowing which corporate or stakeholder groups are meeting with Government Ministers;

(3) commits to the:

(a) timely publication of ministerial diaries as a vital transparency and accountability measure;

(b) maintenance and publication of a searchable register that includes the names of all lobbyists accessing this building, and that those persons be identified as a professional lobbyist, an in-house lobbyist and/or a former Government representative; and

(c) transparency of meetings held by those individuals with Members of Parliament; and

(4) agrees to extend the post-employment cooling-off period for former Ministers and senior government officials to three years, in keeping with international best practice.

(Notice given 12 February 2024.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Dr M Ryan 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

2 MR LAXALE: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges:

(a) the work the Government has undertaken to support Australia's multicultural communities, including:

(i) launching the Multicultural Framework Review;

(ii) supporting a cohesive and inclusive multicultural society;

(iii) investing $20 million in the Adult Migrant English Program;

(iv) extending the Community Language Schools grant program to pre-schoolers;

(v) committing $7.5 million to fund the Australian Human Rights Commission to complete its National Anti-Racism Framework;

(vi) reducing citizenship processing times by 42 per cent to the lowest level in six years; and

(vii) clearing the visa backlogs for nearly 1 million people left behind by the Liberal Party and slashing wait time;

(b) that Australia is proudly one of the world's most vibrant and successful multicultural societies; and

(c) the positive contribution that migration has made to our country, culture and economy; and

(2) condemns the:

(a) Liberal and National parties for their neglect of the immigration system, as outlined in the Nixon Review; and

(b) comments from a former Prime Minister on 2 November 2023, when he stated that he 'always had trouble' with the concept of multiculturalism.

(Notice given 15 November 2023.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Laxale 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MR CALDWELL: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) a report released on 7 February 2024 by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) on the Australian Passport Office revealed that passport applications were not being processed in a 'timely and resource efficient manner';

(b) since being elected, the Government has hiked up the price of Australian adult passports of 10 years by $38 and is planning for a second increase this year of $52 from 1 July 2024;

(c) while the Treasurer has called the price hike a 'relatively modest' change, Australians will be paying 29 per cent more to get their passports during a cost of living crunch; and

(d) Australians already pay more for their holiday thanks to the Government blocking airline competition and now they are paying more just to be allowed to leave the country; and

(2) calls on the Government to reverse their big passport price hike until they comprehensively respond to the ANAO recommendations so that Australians get a fair deal on passports.

(Notice given 13 February 2024.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Caldwell 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

4 MS CLAYDON: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) on 2 November 2023, Australia with 186 other member states again voted for the United Nations General Assembly resolution against the United States' longstanding economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba;

(b) only two member states have voted consistently against the resolution since it was first introduced in 1992, demonstrating overwhelming international support for the end of the embargo; and

(c) the embargo has unfairly hindered the development of the Cuban economy, created decades of economic hardship and has had a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of the Cuban people;

(2) further notes that the embargo:

(a) constitutes a serious and systemic violation of the norms of international law and the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) is not conducive to friendly relations and cooperation between nations and peoples, and it directly affects the development of the Cuban economy and its people; and

(c) impedes the ability of Australian citizens to trade bilaterally;

(3) recognises that sustained international pressure will be one of the most influential methods of ending this enduring and unfair embargo; and

(4) reaffirms Australia's support for an end to the embargo.

(Notice given 6 February 2024.)

Time allotted 25 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Claydon 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

5 MS PRICE: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) this Government spent $450 million on the divisive Voice to Parliament referendum that was rejected by each state and territory, excluding the Australian Capital Territory;

(b) the proposal for a Voice to Parliament was put forward as an urgent solution to help close the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;

(c) since the referendum this Government has been completely absent in this space and has demonstrated that they have no plan B; and

(d) there are proposals on the table that would make a demonstrable difference that this Government refuses to implement, including:

(i) announcing an audit into Commonwealth spending for Indigenous specific programs to identify waste in financial resources and programs that are making a difference;

(ii) establishing a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities; and

(iii) re-instating the cashless debit card in vulnerable communities; and

(2) calls on the Government to focus on practical actions like these to assist in closing the gap.

(Notice given 8 February 2024.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Ms Price 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices — continued

6 MR LEESER: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) that February 2024 marks two years since Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine;

(b) the Ukrainian people continue to show strength, determination and courage in defending their land and resisting Russia's unlawful invasion;

(c) the decision in September 2023 of the Government to retire the MRH-90 Taipan helicopters following the loss of four lives during a training accident; and

(d) the request of the Ukrainian Government in late 2023 for Australia to donate the MRH-90 Taipan helicopters to assist in its ongoing war efforts to defend their homeland.

(2) expresses concern regarding the:

(a) decision of the Government to bring forward its program of dismantling of the MRH-90 Taipan helicopters;

(b) Government's weak and too-little, too-late response to requests for assistance from the government of Ukraine; and

(c) failure of the Government to maintain the former Government's record of delivering a comprehensive package of support that established Australia as the largest non-NATO contributor to Ukraine; and

(3) calls on the Government to demonstrate Australia's continued support for Ukraine by urgently:

(a) seeking advice from defence industry and NATO partners as to what support may be available to facilitate the refurbishment and operation of MRH-90 Taipan helicopters by Ukraine and reconsider the response to the government of Ukraine;

(b) responding affirmatively to the Ukrainian request for thermal power to assist in power generation;

(c) re-establishing Australia's embassy in Kyiv; and

(d) delivering a comprehensive strategy of support covering military, humanitarian and energy supplies.

(Notice given 8 February 2024.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Leeser 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Resumption of debate (from 12 February 2024) on the motion of Mr Rae—That this House:

(1) acknowledges that through the passage of its 'closing loopholes' legislation, the Government has closed loopholes used by some employers to undercut wages, conditions and safety for Australian workers, including by:

(a) stopping companies using labour hire as a means of underpaying their workers;

(b) making it a criminal offence for employers to deliberately steal their workers' wages;

(c) closing the loophole in which large businesses could claim small business exemptions during insolvency;

(d) introducing a new criminal offence of industrial manslaughter;

(e) ensuring better support for first responders with post-traumatic stress disorder;

(f) protecting workers subjected to family and domestic violence from discrimination at work; and

(g) expanding the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include silica;

(2) recognises that many Australian families are doing it tough dealing with the cost of living, and that getting wages moving again is a key part of addressing the cost of living;

(3) notes that the Opposition has voted against legislation to get wages moving 36 times in this term of Parliament; and

(4) calls on the Opposition to support the remaining elements of the 'closing loopholes' legislation, including minimum standards for gig workers, reforms to the road transport industry and a better deal for casual workers who want to become permanent.

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices — continued

7 MS WARE: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) National Cabinet agreed to a national target to build 1.2 million new well-located homes over five years from 1 July 2024; and

(b) the New South Wales Government has conceded that it cannot reach its agreed housing targets of 75,000 new dwellings a year over the next five years;

(2) expresses concern that, as a flow-on consequence, the Commonwealth Government cannot reach its target to construct 1.2 million new homes over five years;

(3) acknowledges that:

(a) the Government's pipedream figure for new housing did not take into account:

(i) record high numbers of liquidations in the building and construction industry;

(ii) a shortage of available construction materials;

(iii) increasing construction material costs; and

(iv) a shortage of skilled tradespeople; and

(b) the Government refused to intervene in the dispute between the Maritime Union of Australia and DP World at container terminals, leading to a 50,000 container backlog and further exacerbating construction material shortages; and

(4) further notes that the Government has:

(a) legislated a failed housing plan; and

(b) ultimately demonstrated that it cannot develop any policy to address the housing crisis, let alone deliver it.

(Notice given 13 February 2024.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Ware 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

8 MRS PHILLIPS: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Australian Government recently published Informing Regional Investment: State of Australia's Regions 2024 which provides evidence and insights on contemporary topics of interest across Australia's diverse regions;

(2) considers the 2024 report focuses on contemporary and pressing issues as identified at the local level, including:

(a) ensuring regional workforces are positioned to meet the needs of today and tomorrow;

(b) promoting the economic aspirations, cultures and languages of First Nations people;

(c) supporting places with amenity, services and economic opportunities;

(d) collaboratively addressing issues like housing availability and affordability and access to quality early childhood education and care;

(e) preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters; and

(f) responding to challenges and opportunities as we transition to a net zero emissions future; and

(3) commends the current Australian Government for their ongoing commitment to advance the lives of regional Australia.

(Notice given 7 February 2024.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Mrs Phillips 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

THE HON D. M. DICK MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

14 February 2024

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

This Government's failure to take effective action on the cost of living crisis.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

After 20 months of a Labor government, it is sad to say that Australians are poorer. Australians are poorer after 20 months of a Labor government, and what we've just seen here—with a very self-satisfied Treasurer coming in here with his grin and a Prime Minister looking very happy with himself—is that clearly they are disconnected from the pain being felt by households throughout this country. It's not often that, after nearly two years of a new government, anyone has been able to stand up and say that people in Australia are now poorer than they were when the Labor Party came to government.

The average household in this country has seen a loss of $8,000. That is the average household. It doesn't include households with a mortgage, and we know that if you've got a mortgage it's well above $20,000—$24,000, in fact, for an Australian family with an average mortgage. That's how much they are worse off after two years of a Labor government. Food is up by nearly 10 per cent. Housing, with this hapless housing minister with no idea, is up by 12 per cent. Electricity is up by 20 per cent. Insurance is up by 22 per cent. It'll be very interesting to see the next quarter's ABS data as Australians start seeing their insurance notices coming through. And, of course, gas is up by 27 per cent.

Let's touch on a couple of those. Electricity is up by 20 per cent and gas is up by 27 per cent, but this Prime Minister, whom the truth is not known to, said on 97 occasions before the election that energy prices for the average house would be down by $275 a year. He said it on 97 occasions. How many times has he said it since the election?

Ninety-six?

Not 96, no, Member for Banks.

Ninety-five?

Not 95, no. He has not said it at all. He's not dared repeat his promise that he made to the Australian people of a $275 reduction in power prices. We know that the truth is not something that the Prime Minister is particularly familiar with, particularly as we see his recent breaking of faith with the Australian people, but he did say before the election—and we saw the headlines—'Life will be easier under me.' 'Life will be easier under me,' was the catchcry from the Prime Minister. Does any Australian, other than perhaps a union official, believe that life is better for them after 20 months of a Labor government? The statistics prove that that is not the case.

We now have a huge admission—a massive admission—from the government of the disaster that has befallen the Australian community. Today we see a very belated—and only once they were forced into it—announcement of $14.4 million of additional funding for food relief agencies. We welcome that very belated commitment. But, if things are going so well in this country, as the Treasurer sits there with his supercilious smile and the Prime Minister laughs all through question time, why on earth are our food banks around the country busting at the seams? Every single person in this place knows that, in their own communities, our food banks are seeing families and individuals whom they have never seen before. They're seeing people with full-time jobs. They're seeing two-parent working families who are only able to make ends meet if they come to their food bank.

So, on one hand, if you look at the scoreboard and the results of 20 months of a Labor government, we've got food banks bursting at the seams—and we say thank you for this very belated and late-coming $14.4 million commitment. But, interestingly, on the same day that we see a $14.4 million commitment to food relief—which, let's be frank, won't even touch the sides for our food banks around the country—we see another commitment from this government, which highlights where its priorities are at. Last night in Senate estimates the finance minister confirmed that the government are going to spend $40 million advertising their broken promise on stage 3 tax cuts. That is $40 million for an advertising campaign and $14 million for our food banks busting at the seams around this country; $40 million for high-end political consultants and advertising agency types to put an advertising campaign and $14 million for food banks. That says everything you need to know about the modern Labor Party, everything you need to know about how disconnected they are from the communities in which we all serve.

On this side of the House we are the true representative of working and Middle Australia. We are the people who truly stand up for the people who those opposite have crushed over 20 months. It goes further. The people who are being crushed by this government, sadly, are anybody renting, anybody trying to save for a home, anybody, frankly, who is trying to put a roof over their head, and what do we have? We have a so-called housing minister who has no idea what she is doing and clearly does not have any sway within that caucus, because we have record low vacancy rates, we have housing approvals at lows we have not seen for 20 years, we have first home buyers at their lowest levels since the Gillard government and we have fewer homes being built than we can remember. At that time, with that suite of statistics, we saw the Labor government bring in 520,000 migrants in the last calendar year, with absolutely no idea where those people are going to live. So what do the government do? The government come out and says, 'Well, we're going to commit to a housing target of 1.2 million homes over the next five years, starting from 1 July this year'—so two years after we have been in government we will make a commitment.

What did we see this week? We saw the HIA, the MBA blow the lid on this 1.2 million homes. What did we hear? We heard the Labor government will only miss it by 400,000—only 400,000! That is 400,000 homes short, based on approval data that we have seen today. So that is not missing it by 'this much'. A 1.2 million home commitment is going to be missed by 400,000 and guess what happens during that same period? We ramp up migration—1.5 million migrants over five years. How on earth can you, in good conscience, bring in 1.5 million migrants with no idea of where they are going to live, which will drive up housing costs for Australian throughout this country?

We believe, on this side of the House, that Australia should never get to a point where young hardworking Australians do not have a realistic prospect of owning their own home. We know the government has waved the white flag. The government wants foreign corporates, foreign multinationals, owning our housing stock and how do we know that? Because they have just given a big tax cut through their build-to-rent tax cuts to foreign funds to own homes in Australia. It will be very ironic if we have given a tax cut to foreign corporates to build homes in Australia but seek to smash mum-and-dad investors by abolishing negative gearing. Let's be frank, we know that is what they are going to do. Just as those opposite said on hundreds of occasions 'we have no plans to change stage 3', 'we have not considered it', 'we have no plans', 'we have not modelled it,' we will hear the same denials in coming months. We will hear the same denials from the Prime Minister. We will hear, 'We have no plan to change negative gearing,' from the Prime Minister. The irony will be that on the one hand we smash mum and dads who want to get a leg up, who want to build for their retirement and on the other hand we will give a tax cut to foreign corporates to own thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of homes in this country. The government have failed on every measure, and shame on them for walking into this chamber looking so satisfied with themselves while the people of this country, including the people in the gallery, are doing it so tough.

I ask members to leave the chamber quietly please. We are in the middle of a debate here. And I ask the member for Moreton to join in that quietness.

Since coming to office in 2022, the Albanese Labor government, our government, has been laser focused on delivering cost-of-living relief to households across the country. We know that many Australians are doing it tough right now and families are under the pump. That's why we've introduced a suite of cost-of-living measures, from fee-free TAFE to tripling the bulk-billing incentive and, most recently, our historic tax reform, which will deliver a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer.

The opposition have said they will support the tax cuts, yet we must have heard up to 30 or 40 speeches from members opposite giving reasons as to why they don't think Middle Australia deserves a tax cut.

They don't mean it.

They don't mean it.

Those opposite don't even pretend to care about the cost of living anymore. All 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will be receiving a tax cut come 1 July under Labor's tax reforms, which deliver a bigger tax cut to Middle Australia to help with the cost of living. Under our plan, 11.5 million people will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under Scott Morrison's legislated stage 3 tax cuts. That's 84 per cent of taxpayers.

Looking locally, in my electorate on the Central Coast of New South Wales it's even higher. Eighty-eight per cent of taxpayers in Dobell will be better off under Labor's plan than under that of those opposite. Who are the biggest beneficiaries of these tax reforms? They are the nurses I worked with at Wyong Hospital, the teachers at Toukley Public School and the retail workers at Woolworths.

As the Prime Minister said, it's not the job of a leader to sit back and wring their hands when confronted with new challenges. It's their job to act, to take responsibility, to do the right thing. That's exactly what we're doing. We want people to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Take aged-care worker Kylie, who recently received a 15 per cent pay rise and has just purchased her first home. She will now be receiving a tax cut. Take Julie from RFBI in Lake Haven, or Tracey, a single parent and personal care worker. They were on the front line of the global pandemic and they deserve more than thanks; they deserve proper cost-of-living relief. The aged-care sector was completely neglected by those opposite for a decade, and now those aged-care workers, who support our loved ones, are receiving the investment and support to care for others that they rightly deserve under our government and Minister Wells.

Since the stage 3 tax cuts were legislated by Scott Morrison five years ago, there has been a one-in-100-year global pandemic. There have been wars, conflict, a global inflation spike and higher interest rates. These events have put people under greater cost-of-living pressure. As the Prime Minister has said, it's our job as a government, when global economic circumstances change, to change the support that we can provide Australians.

While we're focused on supporting Australians, the opposition have tied themselves in knots over whether to support Labor's tax cuts. The opposition were on the front foot in coming out against our tax reforms. Everyone remembers the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying: 'We will fight this legislation in the parliament. We don't even know what it will look like.' When you think about it, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is their instinct on everything.

Another key element of our government's cost-of-living relief is fee-free TAFE. I know that in my community on the Central Coast—and I know Dr Reid, the member for Robertson, will absolutely agree—so many people have benefited from fee-free TAFE. Last year more than 300,000 people undertook a course through the program. I had the privilege of inviting the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Marles, to Ourimbah campus to meet many of the people who are benefiting from fee-free TAFE—people starting out in work, people changing careers or people getting the skills they need for more secure work. That is real cost-of-living relief, and the success of this program in setting people up for work has led our government to commit to a further 300,000 places this year. For workers in areas from hairdressing to plumbing, our government is supporting people to upskill at no cost, helping them into the workforce, into more secure work and better pay.

Just this week the House passed the second part of our government's closing loopholes legislation, after the first half passed the parliament late last year. This legislation delivers much-needed protections and a minimum wage for gig workers, who often work extended hours for minimal pay just to make ends meet. Unsurprisingly, because the legislation made others better off, those opposite fought it every step of the way while being happy to order Uber Eats or Deliveroo. Our government wants all workers to be better off, and this legislation means that gig workers aren't left behind—workers too often forgotten, left behind by the former government unless they were ordering Menulog.

In my area of responsibility, working with Minister Butler in health, this is particularly important in the discussion about the cost of living. As everybody knows, health outcomes, our health and wellbeing, aren't just a result of access to clinical care—although this access is critical, and I will come to that; financial insecurity itself is an important driver of physical and mental ill health. It's no secret that the social grading in this country gives a pretty good proxy for health outcomes. You can map it geographically, too. Equally, in mental health, when you're under financial strain, you're more likely to experience distress.

This is why the Albanese government is so deeply focused on cost-of-living relief across all arms of government. It's a genuine whole-of-government approach to reduce the drivers to stress, to boost protective factors for all Australians. It's why we're getting on with record investment in health to unwind some of the damage those opposite did. And we're strengthening Medicare so that all Australians can access and, importantly, afford quality health care closer to home.

Nowhere is this more the case that in bulk-billing. There is a sharp contrast here. As health minister, Peter Dutton tried to establish a GP tax. When the Senate blocked that, he froze Medicare rebates for six long years. As we said in question time today, he was voted the worst Australian health minister. That demonstrated to GPs what he thought of their profession and to every patient what he thought about their right to care. Those opposite don't see it as a right at all. That's the truth of the matter.

In contrast, under Labor we have brought bulk-billing back to be the absolute beating heart of Medicare. In the two short months since the tripling of the bulk-billing GP incentive, we've stopped the absolute freefall that was happening under the former government and we've seen a big increase in the number of Australians getting their GP appointment for free. It is estimated that some 360,000 additional GP consults were bulk-billed in the first two months of this policy, saving Australians some $15 million in gap fees—$15 million!

I see the member for Deakin, who was so concerned about the cost of living, during his bluster and bluffing earlier, has now left the chamber. In his electorate—

Can't get a question!

Exactly! Can't get a question; can't stay to hear his MPI. The member for Deakin might be pleased to know that his constituents saved some $76,000 in that period. I encourage him to go out there and to recognise and acknowledge the doctors that have moved back to bulk-billing or mixed billing in response to the government's policy change. If not, I'm happy to go and do it for him.

I am delighted to properly acknowledge and recognise every GP around Australia who has responded to a government which genuinely values their time, their skills and their expertise by bulk-billing or mixed billing again. In my electorate of Dobell, our bulk-billing rate has risen by 5.5 per cent in just two months—5.5 per cent. And do you know who benefits most? Aged pensioners, families with young children, people on low and fixed incomes—those who need it most. That's what Labor governments do.

This is a targeted cost-of-living relief for people under pressure which doesn't put pressure on inflation but makes a real difference to the weekly household budget in every community right around the country. It represents a major strengthening of Medicare from the only party who will truly fight for every Australian's right to quality health care. Before Medicare was introduced, the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in Australia was unpaid healthcare bills. That was the leading cause. It's still the case in the United States, despite Obamacare. One in seven Australians didn't have any health cover. That shows you why it's so important to rescue and revive Medicare, and we're doing that by tripling the bulk-billing incentive. It represents a major strengthening of Medicare and genuine universal access for all Australians, wherever they live.

In finishing, in addition to 360,000 bulk-billed GP appointments, Australian people have also benefited through more than 160,000 presentations to Medicare urgent-care clinics. Just recently, the Prime Minister joined the member for Robertson, Doctor Reid, and I at the urgent-care clinic in Umina, where more than 1,200 patients benefited in the weeks it had been open. This is cost-of-living relief.

It's a pleasure to rise and speak on this MPI. Listening to that contribution from the assistant minister was very illuminating. But, as usual, it doesn't deal with the fundamental issues facing the Australian people. As I said in this place earlier today, the government can wax lyrical all it likes about $15 a week on average for workers across Australia. By the time we get to 1 July, those people will hardly notice that change in their take-home pay, because the multitude of other issues facing the Australian economy are not being dealt with by this government. In effect, in many cases, this government is assisting to make it worse. Let's look at some of the figures to date. Food is up over nine per cent. Housing is up over 12 per cent. Electricity is up over 20 per cent. Insurance premiums are up over 22 per cent. Gas is up over 27 per cent. If I look at just electricity and gas, the government was waxing lyrical a little while ago about putting in place measures to try to reduce the cost of that has had no benefit whatsoever. That's one broken promise.

You introduced that.

I hear the member for Moreton interject, and I'm pleased. I actually did give him permission to interject, which was a little bit silly on my part, but I'm always happy for the member for Moreton to try to contribute to the debate, and I'll be interested to hear what he has to say later. But we have seen, over the 18 or 20 months of this government so far, the amount of personal income tax collected by this government grow by 27 per cent. That has been in large part driven by the removal of the low- and middle-income tax offset. While they're talking about 15 bucks a week over there, they've forgotten to mention they took away the low- and middle-income tax offset. Real net disposable income per person has fallen by some 8.6 per cent. On average, that represents a $150 a week fall in real, net disposable income. The trade-off the government is waxing lyrical about is, 'Oh, well, your position is $150 a week worse off, so we'll give you 15 bucks a week back.' Wow! That's very generous! It's extraordinarily generous of those opposite to make people $150 a week worse off and give back $15.

As I've said many times in this place—and we can go through the long list of broken promises by this government—never listen to what the Labor Party say; look at what they do. Nine times out of 10, they are two completely and utterly different things, and the second one will always make you worse off. We've seen people in real terms about $8,000 a year worse off. But that's before we get to mortgage payments. They're paying on average an extra $24,000 a year in interest out of after-tax income. That doesn't include the capital payments on top of that.

So, if we think that, on average, people are $32,000 a year worse off in total—$600 a week—and those opposite, out of the generosity of their heart, are giving people an extra $15 a week, then: wow. I think that's an extraordinary amount of hubris on their part, to say, 'Well, look how good we are, giving you $15 a week,' when in real terms you're actually $600 a week worse off per year. It's a disgrace. And the government has no answers to this problem. They haven't had any for 18 months. In their current economic plans—which are none—they've demonstrated no capacity to deal with any of the real issues facing the Australian people, and it's about time they started to deal with those issues properly.

For those driving along listening, who might have just dozed off during that speech by the member for Forde, I'll just explain that the MPI is something put forward by the opposition, and the topic today is about taking effective action on the cost-of-living crisis. Labor knows that Australian households are doing it tough with cost-of-living expenses. These were challenges not created by the Albanese government but we do take responsibility and are urgently dealing with them. Our priority obviously is addressing inflation—because that takes money out of people's pockets—and all those cost-of-living pressures. Labor acts. The coalition pretends to act.

Now, this topic would have been cleared by the Leader of the Opposition, and I just want to contrast a few things in relation to the Leader of the Opposition. From 1 July this year every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut. I understand, from talking to the Assistant Treasurer, that that's good in a cost-of-living crisis—to give people more money. Those opposite—I've listened to them—have all spoken against this plan. We gave Australians energy bill relief. So, what did they do? They voted against it.

An opposition member interjecting

Well, let's talk about energy prices going up. The last time I checked there'd been a 0.4 per cent increase. They keep bandying around a 20 per cent increase. It was a 0.4 per cent increase. In fact, wholesale prices have halved, and that will start to flow on, as we committed to.

To higher income support payments—a great cost-of-living measure—they said no. The biggest boost to rent assistance in 30 years: they said no. Expanding paid parental leave: they opposed that. Making child care cheaper: they opposed that. Free TAFE, with 300,000 people getting the benefit—they opposed it. We've strengthened Medicare and rolled out cheaper medicines for Australians—something the coalition voted against.

So, we have the member for Dickson saying one thing—he's supposed to be the champion of the workers—but doing something completely different when it comes to the cost of living. It reminds me of Elton John. Now, I'm not comparing the Leader of the Opposition to Elton John in terms of being incredibly talented and wearing big glasses or anything like that. But it does remind me—and because it's Valentine's Day I thought I'd touch on this, change the tone a bit and talk about that song by Elton John, which many of us saw in Rocketman: 'Don't Go Breaking My Heart'. There was that duet he did with Kiki Dee in 1976, and it was No. 1 around the world, back when I was in grade 6. 'Don't Go Breaking My Heart' has incredible harmonies—and harmony obviously isn't something I'd associate the member for Dickson with.

But this is what Elton John and Kiki Dee sing. They say:

Right from the start

I gave you my heart

Oh, I gave you my heart

Don't go breaking my heart

I won't go breaking your heart

We know that when Elton John said that to Kiki Dee he didn't actually mean it, did he? They were beautiful words, but he didn't mean, 'You will never break my heart, Kiki Dee,' and Kiki Dee knew that, because they were just singing a duet together; they're professional singers. In fact, 40 years ago today Elton John married Renate, on 14 February 1984 at St Mark's Church at Darling Point in Sydney. As Elton John later said of Renate: 'She was the classiest woman I've ever met, but it wasn't meant to be. I was living a lie.' And the Leader of the Opposition gets to go to the people of Australia and ask, 'Do you want to be Kiki Dee, or do you want to be Renate?' They get to make a choice.

The member for Dickson can't sing and he can't play the piano, but we do know that we can't believe his words. So my advice to the people of Australia is, when it comes to the member for Dickson, be a lot more like Kiki Dee, not Renate, because that's not going to work out. It's going to end up being a sham, and you'll end up in a marriage you don't want to be in. Okay? And there'll be secrecy clauses and all that sort of thing. My advice to the people of Australia is to look for someone you can sing with in harmony—and that's the Leader of the Labor Party, Anthony Albanese.

We know that, when it comes to positive economic policy development, the member for Moreton and the Labor Party are 'too low for zero'. Deputy Speaker, do you remember that supermarket advertising jingle, 'Down, down'? You had people jumping around and singing to a not very good jingle, 'Down, down', and you had the red arrows going down, down? If there's any integrity in electoral advertising at the next election, the Labor Party's posters should all be 'Up, up' because that's what's happened to costs since the Labor Party came to office. As the member for Forde reminded us, food is up nine per cent, housing is up 12 per cent, electricity is up 20 per cent, insurance is up 22 per cent and gas is up 27 per cent. It's all just going up, up, and I look forward to seeing posters with arrows pointing to the sky.

I'll tell you one thing that is down, and that's net disposable income, particularly in Victoria. Not only are Victorians suffering from inflation because of the irresponsible economic management of the federal Labor government; they're being hit with all sorts of taxes by the state Victorian government. Consequently—and I think a year 8 economics student would have been able to work this out—they don't spend as much as they used to. If they don't spend as much as they used to, the economy slows, and people are at risk of losing their jobs.

We've got inflation problems. We've got stubbornly high inflation. Every time we ask the government about inflation or they talk about inflation, they say: 'We're doing things to get it under control. We're addressing inflation.' What causes inflation? Excessive and wasteful government spending causes inflation. We saw a lot of that during the Rudd-Gillard years. I spoke about that when I was talking about some of the rip-offs in vocational education training and the RTOs that ran rampant during those years. We're seeing wasteful government spending again.

Even worse than that are taxes on productivity. We seem to be having a debate about how much stuff the federal government can give to people. I'm not averse to the federal government helping people out, but surely we should be having a discussion about productivity and growing the economy and making sure that we've got profitable, competitive, productive businesses, because that will get inflation down and that'll mean real wage rises for people.

I'll give you some examples in an area I'm very passionate about, which is agriculture. Everyone's affected by agriculture, because, as I said, food prices are going up. The way to bring food prices down is to give agriculturalists and farmers the tools they need to increase productivity, profitability and efficiency in their business. The government is taking a lot of those tools away. The PALM scheme is no longer workable for many people in horticulture. The ripping out of extra irrigation water from the Murray-Darling Basin means that investment in agriculture is threatened because people don't know whether their water costs are going to be so high that it's not worth growing stuff. These things affect our economy and they affect the prices people pay when they go into the supermarket.

The government is very excited during question time for members to get up and ask ministers questions like: 'In your portfolio, what's the tax cut going to mean? What's $15 a week going to do?' Well, it is not going to do much compared to how much they have already been smashed under the cost-of-living increases since the Albanese government came to office.

The previous government had a scheme called the low- and middle-income tax offset. That could have been extended.

You stopped it!

It could have been extended. I take the interjections. But, instead of a temporary solution to a long-term problem, the government had to break their promise on the stage 3 tax cuts and will have to go back to the well again for meaningful tax reform. But I ask the people who are out there driving along who are probably switched over to a station that was playing Elton John rather than listening to the member for Moreton: are you better off? With all these excuses—the 'dog ate my homework' stuff—are you better off? The answer is definitely not.

I believe I can say with some accuracy—and I do not mean to belabour this analogy—I am the only person in this chamber to be directly named after an Elton John song, the 1973 hit which inspired my mother to call me Daniel. I cite from that song its important refrain, 'Daniel, you are a star.' As the Speaker said, I am not here to comment on the accuracy of the statement; I just put it to the chamber and the chamber can do with it what it wishes.

On the cost of living, those opposite have come into this chamber and given us a long list of things which are increasing in price. What they haven't given us a long list of is their ideas for dealing with it or the things that we have put forward which they have been willing to vote for. It is all well and good to say that they feel the pain of the Australian people, but they have not actually put anything constructive on the table in the last 18 months. In fact, at every opportunity, they have stood in the way of the government putting forward its plan.

I want to start with one of the most important areas of this government's action, one of the first things we did, which was increasing wages. We did that in a number of ways. Firstly, we took action on the minimum wage. We made a representation to the Fair Work Commission, and the minimum wage was increased by $1 an hour. Those opposite said that would wreck the economy. There were also 15 per cent increases in the aged-care award. There have been tranches of IR reform. At every step of the way, those opposite have opposed those measures to increase people's wages, yet that is one of the most powerful ways to help people deal with the cost of living.

The member for Deakin said that we should acknowledge that in fact they are the true representatives of the workers. After all those steps, I'm not quite sure how, but I don't think they are the true representatives of the workers; I think they really are the true heroes of the workers! They're saving workers the burden of having to deal with all the complexity of thinking about how to allocate more household resources to different things, how to deal with the burden of so many more financial resources and how to deal with the guilt of having wrecked the economy through their wages and conditions improving a little! But, no, they are not the true representatives of workers. When it comes to the most basic of things, when it comes to workers' pay and conditions, those opposite have stood in the way at every single step.

Secondly, let's look at our first two budgets. I won't be able to go through all of the measures, but there is measure after measure, whether it be rent assistance, cheaper child care, energy bill relief—speakers on this side have run through all of the various measures, critical measures, that deal with some of the biggest pressures that households are facing. These are measures that make concrete differences to the lives of people, which matter around the kitchen table every morning. Again, on so many of these measures, those opposite stood in the way; those opposite voted against them. I might just add we have put in place all of these measures totalling over $20 billion in a way which is responsible in its budgeting, which means that fiscal policy has been set in such a way that it is aligned with monetary policy, so we have had targeted measures that help those who need the assistance the most but we have done it in a way which has seen inflation continue its downward trajectory.

Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on the issue that has taken up so much time in this chamber this week, which is the amendments to the stage 3 tax cuts. What we have learned from Treasury is that over recent months it has become clear that inflation is not falling evenly across households. We have seen that, across household income deciles, the lowest decile is dissaving at a very high rate. Moreover, increases in prices are falling unevenly across cohorts, and workers are facing increases in prices two percentage points or more greater than other cohorts. What we were faced with was the original Morrison stage 3 tax cuts—legislated in a bygone era, when times were totally different—that would have given millions of households earning $18,000 to $45,000 absolutely nothing, when the Treasury modelling showed that that was a cohort facing more of the burden of price increases than other cohorts. Clearly the community wanted us to change those tax cuts so that they fell in a more appropriate way, in a more just way and in a more economically sensible way. They are also going to fall in a way which deals with bracket creep and which encourages labour supply.

But, again, those opposite have in this case a completely incoherent position. Their deputy leader stridently opposes the tax cuts, but all of the rest of them seem to come in here and deliver speeches where for 14 minutes and 30 seconds they kind of oppose them, and then for 30 seconds they say, 'I don't want to, but I am going to vote for them because people need them after all.' When it comes to any actual measures, those opposite either haven't come up with any ideas or oppose anything useful that has come into this place.

Deputy Speaker, you'll be happy to know I have no Elton John references! Sorry to the member for Moreton and the member for Fraser. But the member for Fraser has just summed up very well with statistics—as he does, as a well-renowned economist—how Australians are struggling. I commend him on that. What he didn't talk about was the mistake after mistake that the Albanese government have made that have led to this. But I will talk a little bit about the member for Moreton, because the song he so beautifully deconstructed for us was about trust and integrity. I thought, 'Wow, that's a brave place to go, given your Prime Minister misled the Australian people over 100 times.'

Let's look through what's happened in the last 20 months since the Prime Minister made a few comments. Let's be really clear. The quotes I'm about to provide from the Prime Minister were from his campaign launch. This wasn't off the cuff. This was decisions that he and his team had made for his campaign launch. Let's start with a direct quote. He talked about 'meaningful help with your cost of living'. Well, as the member for Fraser just pointed out so articulately, in the last 20 months he has done nothing to help Australians with their cost of living. Thank you, Member for Fraser, for outlining that so well for me.

In the second quote from the Prime Minister—Leader of the Opposition at the time—he talks about 'going to embark on a new era of economic reform with productivity growth at the centre'. How is productivity growth going since this Prime Minister took over 20 months ago? It's negative 6.1 per cent, and that's with this Prime Minister putting it at the centre of his objectives. Wow! I have another quote, and this is one of my favourites. The member for Groom will understand how important this one is:

Labor has real, lasting plans for

Twenty months later, how is that going, Member for Banks? Not very well for this Prime Minister, not very well for the Australian people. But it's okay; they'll get back $15 a week in five months time—problem solved! The Prime Minister has solved it. The next quote is:

Labor has real, lasting plans for

…   …   …

We're 20 months into this prime ministership, so he's responsible for everything that's happened. He's had opportunities to make decisions to improve the lives of Australians. What have we seen under this Prime Minister? Interest rates up 12 times. That's not cheaper mortgages for the Australian people. This is another good one, and it's become very relevant:

I will lead with integrity …

The member for Moreton talked about integrity and not misleading people. How has the Prime Minister gone with integrity in the last few weeks? Well, he misled the Australian people over 100 times when it came to the stage 3 tax cuts, including in January this year, well after the invasion of Ukraine, well after the Israel-Gaza conflict began, well after the cost-of-living challenges we're all facing. Then he even said, 'My word is my bond.' Wow! That's integrity.

His solution to these challenges for the Australian people is $15 a week in five months time. But the other bit he doesn't talk about is when the government made a decision last year to let the low- and middle-income tax offset lapse. That was $1,500 a year taken away from the Australian people.

You did that.

'You did that.' Wow! Member for McEwen, thank you. It was legislated. Guess what? As you have shown with the stage 3 tax cuts, you're prepared to change the legislation, so you can't have it both ways. You're going to change stage 3 now; you made a choice last year not to change the $1,500 offset. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

I remind the member for Casey to direct your comments through me in the chair. And Member for McEwen, a little less interjection would be helpful.

Now we get to the last bit: it's all about the politics. As the Minister for Finance admitted last night in Senate estimates, it has taken $40 million of taxpayers' money over two financial years to sell this tax cut. This is using taxpayer money for politics. The Treasurer admitted he had to get the changes out before the Dunkley by-election. It's not about the Australian people; it's about politics.

I've spent the last few minutes googling Elton John songs as well, and the best I could come up with was 'Cold Heart'. I chose that because of a few lines in there, which are:

Oh, no, no, no

No, no, no, no, no

That really reflects the opposition to me. I think you should judge people on what they do and not what they say. Those opposite suggested the cost of living as their MPI, but they didn't bother asking a single question in question time on this issue, because, clearly, it's not so important for them, and, of course, they didn't vote for any of the cost-of-living measures—or the wage rises or the tax cuts, when they come.

Labor is the party that wants Australians to earn more. Workers should earn a decent wage for their efforts. We backed a rise in the minimum wage and we backed a raise for aged-care workers. Those opposite had wage suppression as a deliberate part of their economic strategy, if you can call nine deficits in a row an economic strategy. They voted against every measure to get wages moving.

Labor is the party that wants Australians to be paid fairly for their time. Our closing the loopholes bill means that workers shouldn't have to be on call 24/7 without being paid for that. The opposition doesn't want workers to have any family time or any downtime. They want workers on call 24/7 but unpaid.

Those opposite are happy to talk a good game about the cost of living, but when it comes to the vote—cold heart—they vote no, no, no. They voted no to energy bill relief. They voted no to cheaper child care. They voted no to cheaper medicines. They voted no to tripling the bulk-billing incentive. They voted no to more social and affordable housing. They voted no to fee-free TAFE. I think you get the theme. Now, the latest, those opposite were horrified at our plans to give tax relief to low- and middle-income workers.

The Labor government says Australia workers should keep more of their hard-earned in their pockets. Labor tax cuts will make a real difference for every taxpayer. No taxpayer will be left behind and no taxpayer ignored; 2.9 million more taxpayers will benefit than would have benefited from the Morrison plan from five years ago. Eighty-four per cent of taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut under this plan. In my electorate of Boothby, it's 85 per cent. Ninety per cent of women taxpayers are better off under this plan. Ninety-seven per cent of care economy workers are better off under this plan. Ninety-eight per cent of young taxpayers are better off under this plan, because gen Z were ignored by the Liberal and National parties.

Under Labor's tax plan, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut. Under the coalition's plan, they got nothing. An Australian taxpayer earning an average wage will now get double the tax cut they would have got under the coalition's plan. An Australian family on an average household income will now get a combined tax cut of $2,600, which is $1,600 more than they would have got under the coalition.

Labor's tax plan also addresses bracket creep better than the opposition's stage 3 tax cuts ever did. As a result, the average taxpayer will pay—wait for it—$21,635 less in tax from their income over the next decade. But the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals have made it clear that they do not want tax cuts for Middle Australia. I know they've voted against every other form of cost-of-living relief here, but these are tax changes that will put money in the pockets of their own constituents.

Our tax cuts come on top of billions of dollars of targeted and responsible cost-of-living relief, including electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, tripling the Medicare bulk-billing incentive, cheaper medicines, boosting income support payments and expanding the eligibility criteria for the single parent payment and the supplement for older job seekers, fee-free TAFE, more social and affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave, creating jobs and getting wages moving again. The Labor government's tax cuts have been very welcome across my electorate. It's a great news story. A hundred per cent of taxpayers will get a tax cut, 85 per cent of Boothby taxpayers, 90 per cent of women taxpayers and 98 per cent of young taxpayers. Labor is the government of higher wages, lower taxes and good economic management.

There's so much to cover here today. Goodness me, where do I start? In times past, it took wars to unify the House. Nowadays, Elton John does the job just fine in the way he has brought us together. I'm going to blame the member for Moreton for this. I hope his song isn't Goodbye Yellow Brick Road as rumours would persist, but I'm glad he started us off. For my contribution to the Elton John analogies I'll go with Sacrifice, because the Prime Minister chose to sacrifice his integrity when he reversed his position on the stage 3 tax cuts. Speaker, I'll leave it to your good discretion who had the best Elton John song.

I am going to mix it up, though, and move musical direction to that well-known economist Sir Mix-a-Lot, because I like tax cuts and I cannot lie. It's been a wonderful question that we've had so many times on our position on these stage 3 tax cuts. Where are we? Where are we going to end up? It's where we've always been—voting for lower taxes. That's what we've always done. That is the Liberal Party legacy, from the days of Menzies and right the way through. This is exactly what we do. Quite frankly, when it comes to tax cuts, Labor has all the legitimacy of a 13-year-old kid walking around in an Elton John shirt. That's not what you grew up with. That's not what moves you. That's not who you are. That's not part of your structure and your DNA. It's cool; tax cuts are cool when you're coming towards a by-election in Dunkley when everybody is hurting. It's very cool to get on board then, but it's not who you've been. This is not what's in your DNA. This is who we are. It's our legacy to the Australian people. It's what we're called upon to do every time we come in, and it's what the Australian people trust us to do. The great part is that I genuinely hope we are still talking about tax cuts at the next election. I really hope we do, because I know who the Australian people trust when it comes to tax cuts. It's the people who have delivered them time and time again.

It's wonderful to hear what the benefits of the new stage 3 tax cuts will be for people, and every time they say, 'And they were going to get nothing from those opposite.' That's except, of course, for stage 1 and stage 2—except for those two little things the Romans did for us. They don't talk about what's happened. We're at stage 3. The clue's in the number 'three'. That's where you go back from. So what happened in stage 1 and stage 2? The same people, who it's often pointed out are going to benefit by $800, benefited by $6,000 under stages 1 and 2. Then there's the wonderful story of the LMITO, which was a decision by this side to step in and address cost-of-living concerns for low- and medium-income tax earners. That's a step that we took. We took another one, which was $420 for the cost-of-living tax offset—another step we took for taxpayers. Do you know why? It was because we understand that when times are tight, the best thing we can do—we've heard Labor trying to take this line now—is to let people keep more of what they earn. That's what we do. That's have we have always done. That is our legacy and what we have done time and time again.

When John Howard was in government, he delivered tax relief in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Fascinatingly, when Kevin Rudd came to be Prime Minister, he was smart enough to keep all of those changes that we had from 2007. There we go—Kevin Rudd, one; Mr Albanese, unfortunately, zero on that front.

I'll speak to another one. When times changed—and the government speakers talk about this—a review of their position on tax policy came about. That has happened before. It happened with the GST. In 1993 Mr Howard was against the GST. He went to the election in 1996 and changed his mind. The circumstances changed, and he changed his position. What did he do? He went to an election. He took that commitment to an election and sought a mandate from the Australian people so that he could continue to look them in the eye.

Careful what you wish for!

Absolutely! I wish for another golden age of Howard-era government, and so do the Australian people right now. If you ask the Australian people what they would like more of, Whitlam-era politics or Howard-era stability, strength and growth of real wages. Between 1996 and 2007, real wages growth was 21.5 per cent. Under Howard, real wages growth was 21.5 per cent. Government members are doing a terrible job on their key commitment.

You know there have been four Liberal governments since then?

Fantastic! Good night.

I'm going to start by saying that I actually agree with one point of the member for Groom.

Honourable members: Good night!

There's 'good night' as well—make that two. I also hope that we are talking about Labor's tax cuts at the next election. Eighty-four per cent of my electorate are going to benefit from these tax cuts and be better off, so I hope that at the next election we are still talking about this, because Australian families are under pressure and our Labor government is responding. From 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut, because on this side of the chamber we want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's why, as I said, 84 per cent of people in my community are receiving a bigger tax cut on their hard-earned wages.

Tackling cost-of-living pressures is our No. 1 priority. That's why we're working to cut taxes, boost wages, bring inflation under control and drive fairer prices for Australian consumers. We have seen the world and our country face unprecedented changes since 2018, when the coalition first introduced the stage 3 tax cuts. It is the role of government to make hard choices and not just easy choices. It is the role of government to respond to the country we have now and not to one that we lived in six years ago. We are doing the right thing for the right reasons. Our tax cuts are good for Middle Australia, good for women, good for young people, good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy.

Our tax cuts are in addition to our $23 billion cost-of-living package introduced last year. In the past 18 months, we have introduced cheaper child care. We've reduced the cost of medicine. We've funded fee-free TAFE, provided energy bill relief and backed a 15 per cent wage rise for 250,000 aged-care workers, just to name a few. Labor has also increased the rate of JobSeeker and rent assistance to ensure that those in greatest need receive the additional financial assistance that they deserve. And, from 1 July last year, the national minimum wage was increased by 5.75 per cent, and wages are still on the rise, predicted to rise by four per cent in the coming financial year.

We have made historic and record-breaking investments in Medicare after years of neglect by those opposite. As part of Labor's $6.1 billion strengthening Medicare reforms, we have tripled the bulk-billing incentive for GPs, making it easier and cheaper for people to see a doctor. In the Illawarra, we have already seen, as my friend the member for Whitlam knows, an increase in bulk-billing rates. In November and December alone, locals saved an estimated $480,000 in gap fees, helping to ease the cost of living in the Illawarra. Medicare is part of Labor's DNA. We are proud to have been the party that introduced universal health insurance to Australia, unlike those opposite, who continually seek to dismantle and disrupt it.

We also know that rising grocery prices are impacting millions of Australians experiencing cost-of-living pressure, and we are acting. On 24 January, we commissioned the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into Australia's supermarket sector and pricing practices to ensure that savings are passed on to our community—the consumer at the check-out.

When those opposite were last in government, their finance minister described low wage growth as 'a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture'. Well, at least he was honest. When the coalition talks about a fair go, it's not a fair go for all. For nine long years, it was the policy of those opposite to keep wages low. Labor's tax cuts will benefit all Australians, not just high-income earners. Low-income earners who were forgotten by the coalition's plan have been included in Labor's plan. From Woollahra to Wollongong and from Point Piper to Port Kembla, all Australians will receive a tax cut under our plan. In just 18 months, the Albanese Labor government has started to turn things around and deliver real outcomes for all Australians. We will help deliver the government's commitment of 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes in our Housing Australia Future Fund's first five years. We are getting on with rolling out the cost-of-living relief that is carefully calibrated to take the edge off pressure for our families.

I thank all members for their contribution today. The discussion has now concluded.

During question time, the Leader of the Opposition proposed a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders. The Leader of the House required under standing order 47(e) that further proceedings take place after the matter of public importance. Does the mover wish to speak to the motion?

Indeed I do wish to speak to this motion, because there is national significance and importance attached to this issue. As we know, it's the first charge of any government to make sure that they take decisions to keep their people safe. Every prime minister should have that as their first charge. Yet the reality is that this Prime Minister, a weak prime minister, has a minister who is not up to the task of keeping Australians safe. This minister, during the course of court proceedings, has ceded ground that should not have been ceded and has given weak evidence which has resulted in the High Court directing the release of an individual. From there the government has decided to release, in total, 149 hardened criminals into the Australian community. That makes the Australian public less safe than if those people had been kept in detention. We are talking about people who have serious and questionable backgrounds. We're talking of 149 criminals. We have seven who have been convicted of murder—seven murderers. We have 37 sex offenders. We have 72 other violent offenders, including offenders who have committed repeated acts of domestic violence.

We further learned from estimates this week—the government wasn't forthcoming with the detail, but the bureaucrats were able to provide us with some detail, although they took a lot on notice, I might say—that 18 of these criminals have been arrested and charged by state and territory police for reoffending. So we know that there are further Australian citizens who have fallen victim to these criminals. These criminals should not be on the streets. They should be in immigration detention awaiting deportation. Look at the inept performance of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs today. The Minister for Home Affairs is completely and utterly out of her depth and completely and utterly incompetent. They are presiding over a situation where they have allowed these hardened criminals to commit offences against Australian citizens.

In June of last year, the Attorney-General was informed of the prospects in this matter by his department, and the prospects were weak because the immigration minister and the home affairs minister are weak. The reality is that they knew that this bad decision was coming from the High Court.

Honourable members interjecting—

I'll ask everybody to keep the interjections down.

Did they prepare for it? No, they did not prepare for it. They didn't prudently have a look at the options available to them.

That includes you, Member for Deakin.

They allowed the High Court to hand a decision down, and what happened in that circumstance was that the court handed down a decision—

We allowed them to hand it down?

Ministers at the table, please.

without any options on the table for the government to turn to. They knew a decision was coming from the court and they knew that they could address it somehow through legislation or through support from a third country to export people. They took up none of those options. They decided instead—in all their incompetence and because of their ideology—that they didn't want to see these people locked up. They wanted these people released. What has happened is that these people have now committed offences against Australian citizens. That is a very serious claim to make against a government and against a minister.

We move today in this parliament that the minister should be dismissed, and so he should. His incompetence has resulted in Australians falling victim to crimes by these offenders. Do you think that the Prime Minister could be here to defend his minister? Do you think that he could have taken this suspension of standing orders during question time to defend his minister? No, he could not, because he knows that this minister is not worthy of defence, and he doesn't want to tarnish his own reputation with what the minister has presided over here. I have not seen anything like this in my time in parliament. During my time in parliament it is hard to imagine a more incompetent act from a minister.

We know that these criminals, 149 of them, will go on to commit further offences. We can say that much with certainty. The minister was asked if he knew where these 149 were. He was asked, 'Could you tell me where they are?' It was a simple question. No answer. He didn't know where they were. He then carried on with this fiction that people are being continuously monitored. He repeated the statement that the 149 criminals out in the community were continuously monitored. What happened when they were committing the offences? Were they being monitored while they committed offences against Australian citizens? If that's the revelation, it's even worse than we first thought. We know that the minister hasn't taken one case to the Federal Court to make an application regarding one of these individuals—not one of these sex offenders, not one of these paedophiles, not one of these rapists. He has not sought to petition the court to return one person to immigration detention—not one of them.

I think the Australian public, at the moment, is rightly concerned about a wave of crime across our suburbs in many of the capital cities. Many Australians are falling victim to crime rates that, frankly, are completely and utterly unacceptable. Many older Australians are worried about their homes being broken into, their keys being stolen and their car being stolen. We know that many of these young offenders, in particular, will post Instagram photos of themselves standing in someone's bedroom or making sure that they're taking a car so that they can get a photo—

You're in the wrong parliament, mate!

You'd be better suited to state parliament!

The Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Home Affairs yell out, 'You're in the wrong parliament!' It doesn't matter in relation to these matters. 'We don't care about those victims of crime.' That shows how out of touch you are with the Australian public. The Australian public want their parliamentarians at a federal and state level to do something about the crime being committed. They don't want some soft touch as minister out there telling criminals that they can be released into the community. That's exactly what has happened on his watch. That's why this minister should go.

The minister refuses to provide details to the parliament about why many of these criminals don't have ankle bracelets and why the government had no preparation in place to deal with mitigating the risk that these people presented as they were released. We've got a government here that's telling victims of crime across the country, 'There's nothing to see here,' and 'You're on your own.' You've got the Prime Minister, the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Home Affairs telling people across the country who are worried about their homes being broken into that this Albanese government can do nothing for them.

This government and this Prime Minister have demonstrated themselves to be weak and incompetent on many fronts. This Prime Minister has promised many things to the Australian public. He has broken promises on reducing power prices. He has broken promises on reducing the cost of mortgages. He's broken promise after promise, and this is the latest.

This Prime Minister has been as weak as water. At a time when Australians need their leader to stand up on their behalf, fight for them and be prepared to stand up against criminals—the most basic ask of any prime minister—he's been found wanting yet again. The Australian public are completely and utterly dismayed by the impotence of this Prime Minister. He cannot stand up and support them in their hour of need. He and the minister stand condemned— (Time expired)

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion. The hopeless and hapless minister needs to go. The Australian people want answers to very serious questions, and the minister cannot give them. The first question we asked in question time today was: can the minister confirm, as he'd said in the parliament last year, that all those victims had been contacted by the department? Could he answer that question? No, he couldn't. The second question we asked was: are the 149 hardened criminals being continuously monitored? Could he answer that question? No, he couldn't. We know that 36 of those hardened criminals don't have ankle bracelets, so how could they be continuously monitored? Yet he said in this parliament that they were being continuously monitored. He misled the parliament in doing that.

We asked him: are those 149 hardened criminals being continuously monitored? He couldn't answer it. We then asked him: how have 18 of those people committed crimes in the states and territories? They've reoffended. How could they have been continuously monitored? He couldn't answer that. It's damning, and it's continuously damning. We asked the minister why he didn't attend crucial meetings in the lead-up to the decision to let the 149 hardened criminals go. On 14 September, his office met with the legal counsel of his department. On 12 October, his office met with the legal counsel of his department. On 31 October his office met with the legal counsel of his department. Where was the minister? He was completely absent.

As a matter of fact, we found out from Senate estimates last night that in June the government was warned that they were likely to lose the case, yet the minister did not meet once—not once—with the legal counsel from his department until after the High Court had handed down its decision. He stood in here and said his No. 1 priority was to keep the Australian community safe. Is that keeping the community safe—not turning up to one meeting with the legal counsel? That is a dereliction of duty. That means nothing else than that the Prime Minister should sack his minister. We cannot get a straight answer out of this minister.

The last question today was a very simple one: are all the people that have been released from the NZYQ cohort on bridging visas R? The home affairs minister laughs about this. Are they on bridging visa R?

Well, he couldn't answer that question, and that question is important because that's the visa that has the conditions on it. The hapless and hopeless minister cannot answer all of these questions, yet he is responsible for keeping the Australian community safe. The No. 1 responsibility of any government is to keep the Australian community safe. If you cannot do that, you do not deserve to govern this country.

I say this: the home affairs minister wants everyone to look here, look there, look in the past and look over here because she doesn't want to own up to her incompetence or the incompetence of the minister for immigration. She doesn't want to deal with the fact that under her watch—

I'll ask the member to direct comments through the chair.

She does not want to deal with the fact that, under her watch, there are victims of crime.

Don't you start, Member for Petrie.

Under her watch, people have been harmed because she and the minister for immigration failed to keep the Australian community safe. That's why I'm happy to support the Leader of the Opposition in saying the minister for immigration should go.

I just remind people that the pile-on of interjections is not appreciated by me or the members of the public listening.

Let's see if we can lift the standards a bit. That was 15 minutes of just about the greatest incompetent drivel and hypocrisy that I've ever heard in this parliament. The way that this important national security problem for our country is being relentlessly politicised by those opposite is disgraceful.

I want to speak a little bit first about the substance of the matter, the government's NZYQ response, and I want to start with some home truths, because the mistruths that are being told on that side of the chamber about this case are very, very important and, importantly, very, very wrong. The first thing I want to say is: let's just be very clear about one important point here. Our government did not want these people released from detention, and the proof is in the pudding there, because, when we had the power to keep these people in detention, that's exactly what we did. That is why all these people were in a form of detention when NZYQ was brought down.

The High Court had a case before it brought by NZYQ, and I will remind the parliament at this point that the reason that NZYQ was still in our country is that the Leader of the Opposition, who sits opposite me here, took a personal ministerial intervention and lifted the bar, allowing NZYQ to apply for a protection visa, which he then proceeded to do. But that's not the only culpability of the Leader of the Opposition here. Do you know what would have really helped with NZYQ? It would have really helped if some attempts had been made to remove this person from the country before Minister Giles and I started to get onto that part of the problem. We would not have had an NZYQ case if the Leader of the Opposition had just done his job and made that remote effort to approach other countries and remove NZYQ from the country, as a good minister would have done and as Minister Giles and I did.

The High Court made a decision that our government did not agree with. We went before the High Court and we argued against the decision they made. But governments do need to manage changes in the law that are made by the High Court of Australia. That includes a Liberal government, a Labor government or government of any stripe. So what does a good government do in the face of these decisions?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The minister can't be heard. Tone it down a bit, please.

They move quickly to make alternative arrangements, and that's exactly what we did. What you saw within a few weeks of the decision was that the government put in place four layers of protection for the Australian community—four parts of our immigration system that didn't exist before. This included, as the immigration minister has laid out really clearly for the parliament this week, electronic monitoring bracelets and curfews for people; a $250 million investment in Operation Aegis, which is a joint Australian Border Force and Australian Federal Police operation; a preventive detention regime; and the Community Protection Board, which for the first time has really brought people from law enforcement into the immigration part of our work and is advising us on conditions.

The Manager of Opposition Business is not to interject.

I'd say to the parliament that I have been here now for 10 years—not as long as some of those who are yelling at me opposite—and I can say with absolute honesty that I never saw the former government act with this speed and substance on anything that they did. I never saw it. There are a lot of people around politics at the moment taking a little bit of interest in a little program called Nemesis that runs on Monday nights on ABC, and I can tell you why. We now all understand why the former government was incapable of achieving anything at all: because they were all too busy fighting amongst each other, bitching like a bunch of mean girls to each other and trying to claw and hang on to power. I have to say it was unedifying but, importantly, it made me really bloody angry, because we went from a decade of continental drift under those opposite, and now they're coming in and trying to give us a lecture about how to run the Australian government.

I am not going to take a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition, this week of all weeks, on the management of our migration system. I'm just not going to do it, because this week we received the third of three reports by eminent Australians, which makes hundreds of pages of evidence of what a disaster area the Leader of the Opposition was when he ran our migration system.

I want to speak first about the Richardson review, a truly extraordinary report that was released this week. I have it here; I'm going to table it into the public record. This landmark review by Dennis Richardson, an eminent Australian, shows us—the Leader of the Opposition laughs. I assume he agrees with me that Dennis Richardson is a person of unbelievable integrity.

He's calling him a Labor hack. I wonder about that! This is a landmark report, and what it shows is that under the Leader of the Opposition the home affairs department paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money on companies and individuals that dealt in arms and drugs and trafficked in human beings. This all happened under the watch of this supposed tough guy on the borders, this person who's coming into the parliament today and giving us all a lecture about how tough he is on crime. Well, under his watch, hundreds of millions of dollars were funnelled into these companies.

A lot of people out there will be thinking: 'What the hell? How did this happen under his watch?' We got a little bit of insight into that this week during estimates. What we heard in estimates is that the department actually raised these issues with the minister. They raised issues about a company that was about to be awarded a contract worth more than half a billion dollars for the management of an offshore processing centre. He was told in a report that the company had never been awarded work of anything like this kind. I understand that this company was actually headquartered in a beach shack on Kangaroo Island. Under him, they got a half-a-billion-dollar contract.

Honourable members interjecting —

Order! I really can't hear.

Any minister faced with this kind of issue would ask more questions. Surely any minister would ask more questions. But what did the Leader of the Opposition do? He didn't ask a question. He didn't ask for a meeting. He didn't ask for a further briefing. He just said, 'Noted,' and on he moved. And after that, half a billion dollars went into that company.

There are many other examples, but I don't want to dwell just on the Richardson review, because there are many other things that need to be put onto the public record here. I want to talk now about the report that Christine Nixon wrote into the exploitation in our migration system, and again I table that for the parliament. In some ways, this is actually the most damning report into the Leader of the Opposition. For almost the whole time he has been in parliament, his whole public persona has been puffing himself up as a big tough guy on the border. But what did the Nixon review find? It found that there were serious and systemic problems with exploitation in the migration system. It found that the system had been used to perpetrate some of the worst crimes that there are—sexual slavery and human trafficking—under the watch of the Leader of the Opposition, our so-called tough guy on the beat. She found there was delay and dysfunction in the system. She also found something very interesting: for all the tough talk that we have heard over previous years from the Leader of the Opposition, he halved immigration compliance funding to the Department of Home Affairs. Have you ever heard of anything more hypocritical than that?

I don't want to finish without talking about the Parkinson review. In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, I don't think he has ever pretended to actually care about the central importance of migration to the future of our country. It has just never been a particular interest of his. And, of course, the Parkinson review told us that our migration system is fundamentally broken. Martin Parkinson said that this was due to a decade of deliberate neglect under the Leader of the Opposition. We've got some critiques today for the Leader of the Opposition. I want to table for the parliament—

An opposition member: Another one!

Yes, another one, mate. That's how bad it was. We have hundreds of pages here, which—for the HansardI now table, which are an unbelievable indictment of the entire record of the opposition leader.

But don't let me just stick with Home Affairs, because of course the wreckage and ruin that the Leader of the Opposition left is actually strewn all over the Australian government. Speaker, let me remind you about defence. This is a guy who likes to think of himself as a real tough guy on national defence, but what did he do when he was minister? He left behind a litany of delayed projects, which I believe were up to 97 years late by the time Labor came to office. Seriously, what a fraud.

Let me not forget the most important one of all, perhaps, for many Australians, which is the catastrophic failure in our healthcare system. There is only one person in this parliament who has been voted the worst health minister in the entire history of Medicare, and he sits in the chair opposite me. This is someone who tried to trash Medicare, and it's only because of Labor that Australians are not paying $5 on top of every other fee every time they go to the doctor. He shakes his head, but it's a matter of public record that this is what he did.

We shouldn't suspend standing orders, at least not for the substance of the matter that has been brought forward, because the truth is that the person with questions to answer here is the Leader of the Opposition. But what we see time and time again is that he is a pretend tough guy who's afraid to answer the tough questions.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following:

(1) the Member for Clark moving:

That this House:

(a) notes that:

(i) on 20 and 21 February 2024, the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom will hold a hearing into whether Walkley Award winning journalist Mr Julian Assange can appeal against his extradition to the United States of America;

(ii) Mr Assange remains incarcerated in HMP Belmarsh in the UK, awaiting a decision on whether he can be extradited to the USA to face charges for material published in 2010, which revealed shocking evidence of misconduct by the USA; and

(iii) both the Australian Government and Opposition have publicly stated that this matter has gone on for too long; and

(b) underlines the importance of the UK and USA bringing the matter to a close so that Mr Assange can return home to his family in Australia;

(2) debate on the motion being limited to the mover, seconder and two other Members;

(3) speaking times being 10 minutes for the mover and five minutes for all other Members speaking;

(4) amendments to the motion not being permitted; and

(5) any variation to the arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Sadly, we've just about run out of time to save Julian Assange, because on Tuesday and Wednesday, just next week, in what could well be Julian Assange's last two days before a British court, the High Court of Justice in London is hearing Julian Assange's request for leave to appeal his US extradition. If Mr Assange is unsuccessful next week in the UK High Court of Justice, the frightful reality is that he could be on a plane to the United States of America within hours.

Good God! This man has already been in Belmarsh high-security prison in London for about five years. This is the prison for the worst of the worst in the UK. It is where they put mass murderers and terrorists. It is where a prisoner was knifed and killed, elsewhere in the prison, the very afternoon I visited Julian Assange in 2000. Of course, the five years in Belmarsh followed some seven years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Surely this man has suffered enough. The matter must be brought to an end. But if he is unsuccessful next week in the London court, he could be on a plane within hours to another court—this time in the United States of America—where he'll be facing 17 charges under the US Espionage Act and one charge under the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. If he is convicted, he will be facing 175 years in prison in the United States. In other words, if he is extradited, perhaps as soon as next week, he will be handed, more or less, a death sentence. Why? It is because this Walkley award-winning journalist did his job. It's as simple as that. He did his job.

Let's not forget that in 2010 Julian Assange, through WikiLeaks, revealed hard evidence of US war crimes and other misconduct in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay. Who could possibly forget the grainy image, provided to WikiLeaks by a brave whistleblower, that subsequently was released under the title 'collateral murder'? It was footage of a US attack helicopter gunning down and killing innocent civilians and Reuters journalists in a street in Iraq. We only know of that because Julian Assange made us aware of it. He was doing his job. He was exercising every right he has as a journalist to tell us about wrongdoing.

As much as the attack on journalism is terrifying, the injustice of all this is absolutely breathtaking because if this matter runs to its shameful conclusion then it will have set a precedent that applies to all Australian journalists. If ever any Australian journalist annoys a foreign government in any way, and if that government is a government that the Australian government is hoping to curry favour with, then who's to say that the Australian government won't be complicit in the extradition or the transport of that Australian journalist to that country?

What happens if an Australian journalist offends China at a time when we're seeking to improve our relationship with China? The precedent will have been set and that journalist may well find him or herself on a plane to China. What about if we're trying to curry favour with Saudi Arabia and an Australian journalist writes something that offends Saudi Arabia? Will the Australian government come to that Australian journalist's aid? Well, the precedent will have been set and no Australian journalist can be confident they will be safe in the future if this extradition goes ahead.

That's why we have this very important part of this motion: the importance of the UK and the USA bringing the matter to a close. Finally, after seven years in the embassy, after five years in a high-security prison, just allow this long-suffering Australian journalist to come home, to be with his wife, to be with his children. The importance of this is so great that I will certainly be jumping on a plane next Tuesday, hoping to be in London for the second day of the court hearing. I think it's very important that a member of this parliament bears witness to what is going on in London next week, stands with Julian's family and offers them some comfort and communicates to Julian Assange and his family and his legal team the widespread support already in this parliament.

Let's not forget there are dozens of members of this parliament who are members of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group. Almost one-third of this parliament signed an open letter to the US government not that long ago calling for this matter to be brought to an end. Today, in this place, shortly, it will be time for all of us to stand up and take a stand: to stand with Julian Assange, to stand for the principles of justice and to stand for the principles of media freedom and the rights of journalists to do their jobs.

I'm hopeful this motion can pass this afternoon. I'm hopeful that I can go to London next week and make it clear to the British government and, through the media, to the US government that the Australian parliament stands as one and calls for this matter to be brought to an end. Regardless of what you might think of Julian Assange, and I acknowledge in this place there's a range of views—there are people who loathe the man, there are people who worship the man, but I'll tell you what: no matter which end of that spectrum you are positioned, just about everyone agrees that this has gone on too long and that it must be brought to an end. I'm confident that if this parliament can support this motion this afternoon, it will send a very powerful political signal to the British government and to the US government. It will send a very powerful signal to the British government that it should not entertain the idea of Mr Assange being extradited to the US. It will send a very powerful signal to Washington that Australia stands as one in saying that this matter has gone on long enough.

Regardless of what you might think of Mr Assange, justice is not being served in this case now. In any case, he's suffered enough. For heaven's sakes, something like five years in Belmarsh, about seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy. How much is enough? This is the afternoon when this parliament takes a stand and says enough is enough, and when we call on the US and on the UK to let him out of prison, to drop the charges, to let him be rejoined with his family and to let him come home.

I am very glad to second this motion. Make no mistake, the Australian community wants to see Julian Assange go free. While there may be a range of views about Mr Assange, as the member for Clark said, his further incarceration and prosecution are seen by many to represent an injustice, and that's my personal view; it is not shared by everyone. But there are many in this chamber and in the other place who want to see the matter resolved. Indeed, the open letter from the co-convenor of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Friendship Group, which includes the member for Clark and the member for Bass—with whom I am glad to share this debate—was signed by 63 members of the Australian parliament. It is significant that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have been clear in saying that the matter should come to an end.

The Prime Minister has properly raised a matter of Julian Assange with the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom and that marks a shift from what occurred previously. In May last year, the Prime Minister said 'enough is enough' when it comes to the ongoing incarceration of Julian Assange, and also said 'there is nothing to be served' by the ongoing incarceration of Julian Assange. That is quite right, because Julian Assange has been held in maximum security conditions at Belmarsh prison for nearly five years. His health has suffered. His extradition to the US was previously denied by a UK court on the basis of his seriously poor mental health, which made him a suicide risk.

While every country is of course entitled to apply its justice system and the US is entitled to apply its justice system, we should remember that Julian Assange has been now imprisoned for a considerable period without having being convicted of any substantial charge. He is an Australian citizen being pursued under the United States Espionage Act for the dissemination of material the United States regards as secret. The same material has been published without legal consequence by media organisations in the US.

The open letter I referred to earlier was published in the Washington Post. The co-convenors wrote and 63 parliamentarians signed up to the statement that it is wrong for Mr Assange to be further persecuted and denied his liberty. When one considers the duration and circumstances of the detention he has already suffered, it serves no purpose. The letter concluded by saying:

We note with gratitude the considerable support in the United States for an end to the legal pursuit of Mr Assange from members of Congress, human rights advocates, academics, and civil society, and from within the US media in defence of free speech and independent journalism.

In acknowledging the death of American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg last year, I noted his support for and solidarity with Julian Assange. Daniel Ellsberg was responsible for exposing some of the details of the circumstances of the Vietnam War. In a 2021 interview he said in relation to Julian, 'Look, I was available for people to point to and say, We support good whistleblowers, but that is just ridiculous. Whatever he is guilty of, I'm guilty of. I identify with him completely. The notion that he is guilty of something that I, the good guy, wasn't, is false.'

We must never forget that, contrary to the idea that our safety and wellbeing depends more than anything else on secrecy, the reality is that our safety and wellbeing is at enormous risk when the most grave applications of state power are not held to account. In truth, the distinctive and most precious quality of all liberal democracies, including our own, is the capacity to apply open and proper scrutiny to all decision-making but especially decision-making that involves military action or the infringement of civil liberties through a security apparatus.

There are many in the United States and in the United Kingdom, in the media, in the Congress and in civil society that share the view that, when it comes to Julian Assange, enough is enough. It is healthy that this matter is openly and respectfully debated in all three countries. I think I can say on behalf of the co-convenors of the group that we have always found an openness in the United States and in the United Kingdom to have these conversations. That is a mark of what makes those three countries—ourselves, the United States and the United Kingdom—examples of liberal democracies at their best, the fact that we can have those conversations. But I say clearly that the further prosecution and incarceration of Julian Assange has no point, it serves no purpose and it should end.

Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) on 20 and 21 February 2024, the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom will hold a hearing into whether Walkley Award winning journalist, Mr Julian Assange, can appeal against his extradition to the United States of America;

(b) Mr Assange remains incarcerated in HMP Belmarsh in the UK, awaiting a decision on whether he can be extradited to the USA to face charges for material published in 2010, which revealed shocking evidence of misconduct by the USA; and

(c) both the Australian Government and Opposition have publicly stated that this matter has gone on for too long; and

(2) underlines the importance of the UK and USA bringing the matter to a close so that Mr Assange can return home to his family in Australia.

Do I have a seconder for the motion?

I second the motion.

Thanks to my co-conveners, the member for Clark and the member for Fremantle, for bringing this motion forward. For more than 4½ thousand days and counting, Julian Assange has not experienced true freedom. We're now just a week away from a decision on his final UK court appeal, where he faces up to 175 years in prison over 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse. We know that his life is at risk. His lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, recently said:

Because of the treatment he has suffered, he suffers a major depressive illness, he has been diagnosed as being on the [autism] spectrum, and the medical evidence is if he was extradited to the United States those conditions would cause him to commit suicide. So his life is at risk and I am not exaggerating that.

I joined this group because of my ongoing concerns about the treatment that he has endured over the past decade. While there are, as we've heard, a range of views about the actions of Mr Assange and WikiLeaks which can be debated, at the end of the day it's no longer the point. What I can say is that the ongoing prosecution of Mr Assange offends my sense of natural justice, my sense of human dignity and my sense of fairness. He's an Australian citizen who has endured terrible conditions and has suffered significant mental and physical challenges as a result of his ongoing incarceration due to the lengthy legal battle.

It's not clear to me that Mr Assange committed any crime in the jurisdiction of the United States, and the pursuit of him by American authorities even now is an overreach and does not serve the interests of justice. Even if Mr Assange were guilty of a crime, which I'm not sure is true, and there were due punishment, hasn't he already served that punishment? Surely he has paid that price and has suffered enough. It is worth noting that the person who gathered the information published by WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning, has been free for the past seven years. Is it not ultimately a matter of fairness? The ongoing prosecution and, indeed, persecution of Mr Assange does not serve the interests of justice or human dignity. He ought to be released from custody and allowed to return to Australia with his family.

I echo the words of fellow parliamentary group member the member for Bruce, who has said:

There can never be a legal solution to this case. It is inherently political.

I also agree with barrister Greg Barns SC, adviser to the Australian Assange Campaign, who said:

Of course, some say the Assange case must be allowed to take its course via the courts because extradition is a legal process. While that is true in the vast majority of cases this is an exceptional set of circumstances. In that sense it is like the case of David Hicks … Rightly that case was resolved via the political relationship between the Howard government here and the Bush Administration because it too was a case infused with a political overlay.

Now is the time to end a dangerous threat to basic freedoms and the rule of law.

We have previously managed to secure the safe return of Australian citizens under difficult diplomatic circumstances, and we have a responsibility to do the same for Mr Assange.

I called on the previous government to step up and stand up to bring Mr Assange home, and I am pleased that his case now has some bipartisan support from the leaders of both parties, who acknowledge that enough is enough. And I acknowledge that there has been work to lobby the US government. Our group had a constructive meeting with Ambassador Caroline Kennedy last year to discuss the case. I also thank parliamentary colleagues who undertook a trip to the US last year to make direct representation to our US counterparts. Prior to this trip more than 60 colleagues across the political divide signed a letter of support explicitly calling on the US to drop the prosecution of Assange. The letter said:

It serves no purpose, it is unjust, and we say clearly—as friends should always be honest with friends—that the prolonged pursuit of Mr Assange wears away at the substantial foundation of regard and respect that Australians have for the justice system of the United States of America.

Surely we can all agree that we do not want to see an Australian citizen continue to languish in a foreign prison. Enough is enough.

I rise to support this motion regarding Julian Assange and I commend the member for Clark and all those other members who have been involved in bringing this motion before this place. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that this parliament has had to move and push to ensure that Julian Assange is brought home. But it is perhaps more critical now than ever that we speak with, hopefully, one voice, to make it clear that it is time to bring Julian Assange home.

Julian Assange is a brave Australian whistleblower and journalist. He has been locked in the UK's notorious Belmarsh prison since April 2019, largely in solitary confinement, having never faced trial or been convicted. And of course that follows years spent in the embassy. The offence he is charged with, ultimately, is telling the public the truth about the appalling conduct of the US military in the illegal invasion of Iraq. I want to say a bit more about that in a moment, but, as other speakers have drawn attention to, one of the most pressing issues at the moment is Julian Assange's health and what is facing him over the coming days and potentially over the coming years.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment visited Julian in May 2019 and even at that stage reported serious concerns about his detention and his health. Now, years later, we have a situation where the very next thing that might happen to Julian Assange is his transport to the United States. And let's be clear that, given Julian's health, any sentence of imprisonment under the notorious US Espionage Act and extradition to the US would almost certainly be a death sentence. It cannot be allowed to come to that. That is a large part of the reason you see so many people from across the political spectrum saying it has gone on for far too long. He is now facing a grave risk to his life because it has gone on for far too long. That is why the critical next step must be to ensure that Julian Assange is brought home.

As to the fundamental matters that underlie the whole reason for his incarceration and his imprisonment, it's that he's on trial for telling the truth. As a result of the 2010 and 2011 work of Wikileaks, media organisations around the world published information that showed that US military operations engaged in attacks on civilians and other atrocities, including images that we must never forget, like the chilling video now known as Collateral Murder. Chelsea Manning, a former US soldier who was involved in leaking many of these classified documents, has already been released from prison after their sentence was commuted by former US President Obama. But Julian remains locked up.

There is global support for Julian Assange to be returned home, and this is particularly strong in Australia, as it should be. He has become symbolic of journalists around the world who face attacks on press freedom, often-shrinking government accountability and, in some jurisdictions, persecution ranging from political prosecutions through to murder. As the member for Clark ably said before, this sets an incredibly chilling precedent for journalists in the future and for journalists' ability to hold governments to account, to say uncomfortable things about governments—things that might be uncomfortable for their own government—and to know that you can tell the truth without facing imprisonment and without facing a risk to your own life.

I will also note that prime minister after prime minister in this place has signed Australia up to AUKUS, an arrangement that, in our view, is one where Australia fronts up with a chequebook and does what it's told to do by the other partners. If governments think that participation in the AUKUS agreement and alliance is so critical, surely part of that should be the insistence on human rights and the proper treatment of our citizens—of Australian citizens. If we are sitting around a table with these governments, we should be able to insist that Julian Assange is brought home.

I commend this motion to the House. I acknowledge the work of the parliamentary friends of Assange group. Let's join together today and say clearly: bring Julian Assange home.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The actual provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 are that the tax on incomes of $18,000 to $45,000 will reduce from 19c to 16c in the dollar and that the flat $45,000 to $200,000 threshold, taxed at 30c in the dollar, will now split into two, where $45,000 to $135,000 will be taxed at 30c and $135,000 to $190,000 will be taxed at 37c. The 37c tax rate was the subject of the coalition's very sensible stage 3 tax cut legislation. Labor has claimed this will be broadly revenue-neutral. However, Treasury has said the measure will cost at least an extra $1.3 billion over the next four years, while, over the medium term, the measure will increase tax receipts by $28 billion over the next decade. This in effect means that, going into the future, this will make a lot of our taxpayers significantly worse off with bracket creep. The fact that the government has not addressed this has shown, yet again, that, since coming to office, the Prime Minister and the government have made the wrong decisions. They've been very distracted by other matters and they have also been breaking promises at every opportunity.

Meanwhile, in the first 18 months of Labor's government, personal income tax has risen by a record 27 per cent. However, the purchasing power of an Australian earning a gross salary of $85,000 has fallen by more than $7,000. It has fallen by $7,600 since Labor came to office, and Labor has no answers as to how to address this. This is a symptom of economic mismanagement, where we still see headline inflation remaining far too high—much higher than most other OECD countries and our competitors.

One of the other objections to this legislation was that this was another broken promise of this Prime Minister and this government. And, just to reiterate, some of those promises that were made before and after the election were that there would be a $275 reduction in energy prices. Broken promise. There will be no change to super taxes. Broken promise. There would be an increase in real wages. Broken promise. There will be no changes to franking credits. Broken promise. 'You will all have cheaper mortgages; all Australians will have cheaper mortgages,' said the Prime Minister during the election campaign. Broken promise. Let's tell that to the average mortgage holder. The average mortgage holder in my electorate of Hughes, for example, is now paying $25,000 a year more. They now have to find $500 a week in after-tax income to pay their mortgage. 'There will be no changes to stage 3 tax cuts,' said the Prime Minister. 'My word is my bond.' Another broken promise.

While it is the case that the coalition will support this legislation because we are a party that is committed to lower taxes, smaller government and less regulation, what is important here is that Australians are now seeing this Prime Minister cannot be trusted. His repetitive oath, 'My word is my bond,' and further broken promises mean that he has broken trust with the Australian people.

I rise to make a contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. The great part about these tax cuts is every taxpayer gets one. It's simple. In my electorate of Hunter, every single taxpayer will receive a tax cut under our new tax cuts, with 86 per cent of Hunter taxpayers receiving an even bigger tax cut from 1 July. Australians across the board are doing it tough, and tough times call for tough decisions. What we have seen is a leader who is willing to make some tough decisions. I know in my electorate the people congratulate the Prime Minister for making that tough decision.

When the previous government legislated the original stage 3 tax cuts five years ago, the world was a very different place. It was before a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, persistent and stubborn high inflation, higher interest rates, two conflicts and global uncertainty that put Australians under more sustained cost-of-living pressures. There is no doubt that this decision was very difficult politically. But this is about people and not about politics, and it's the responsible thing to do. We are making the right decision, not the easy one, to make sure that cost-of-living relief goes to everyone, especially those who are doing it tough.

So here are the facts. From 1 July this year the government will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent, reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent, increase the threshold above which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $120,000 to $135,000, and increase the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000.

The 45 per cent threshold will be lifted on 1 July for the first time since Labor was last in office. What does that mean for taxpayers in the Hunter electorate? Our new tax cuts will make a real difference for 73,000 taxpayers who will receive a tax cut. It means that 63,000 taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut than what was being proposed under the old plan. This translates to a larger tax cut for 90 per cent of female taxpayers. Nurses, teachers, childcare educators, chefs and truckies are some of the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut. Parents, particularly women with young children, will be meaningfully supported to return to work under the government's changes through increases to their take-home pay. Under the proposed changes, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut. The old plan would have seen them receive a big fat zero—doughnuts. This will significantly boost the take-home pay for Australians on modest incomes and people working part-time.

So let's break it down into numbers. Someone on the average Australian wage, of around $73,000, will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 year. That's around $29 a week, and it's more than double what they would have received under the old plan. For a family on an average household income of around $130,000 with one partner earning $80,000 and the other earning $50,000, their combined tax cut will be over $2,600, which is around $50 a week, and about $1,600 a year more than what they would have got under the old plan. A person earning $40,000 a year will get a tax cut of $654, compared with nothing under the previous plan. A person earning $100,000 will get a tax cut of $2,179. That's $804 more than they would have received under the previous plan. And a person earning $200,000 will still get a tax cut, which will be $4,529.

Over the last few weeks I've been out speaking to my community about the tax cuts and what they mean for local residents. Emma from Branxton is a registered nurse in the Hunter electorate. She earns around $90,000 a year and paid $21,517 in income tax in the 2023-24 financial year. On the same salary Emma will pay $1,929 less in tax in the 2024-25 financial year under the government's new tax plan. That is $804 more than under the previous plan. Gordon is an electrician in Lake Macquarie and is married to Tracy, who is at home caring for their child. Gordon expects his wage to be around $130,000 in the 2024-25 financial year. With the new tax cuts, Gordon will receive $3,379 of income tax relief.

While these tax cuts benefit everyone, I understand that some people in my community who make over $150,000 might not be entirely happy with these changes. I want to reassure those individuals that you will still receive a tax cut. Actually, you'll get the largest tax cut of all. 'How?' you ask. We're increasing the highest tax threshold from $180,000 a year to $190,000 for the first time in 16 years. Just like everyone else, these individuals have expenses, like school fees, childcare fees, health insurance and housing costs, either rent or mortgage. Many of them bought homes when interest rates were expected to stay low, but now they're dealing with higher rates, like many other Australians. They are facing similar financial pressures. They've been waiting for tax relief, and we're delivering it by raising the tax threshold to $190,000 and giving them a tax cut too. I spoke with Ian, a miner from Muswellbrook, who told me that this is a far more equitable outcome. Ian earns more than $170,000 a year and still gets a tax cut, but his children, who are in the childcare and service industries, get a far better deal on their tax.

Those opposite love a good scare campaign. It's the only policy they can come up with. We hear them running around like Chicken Little, telling everyone the sky is falling in, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The advice from Treasury is clear: our tax cuts will not add to inflationary pressure, because they are broadly revenue neutral. With the continuing fall of the inflation rate, Treasury are clear that our tax plan will not impact their forecast for inflation to fall to the target band.

Australians are under pressure right now and deserve a tax plan that responds to the challenges they are facing, but those opposite have backflipped on what they will do for struggling Australians. Why are they standing in the way of bigger tax cuts for Middle Australia? We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying they would roll back these changes, meaning that 63,000 people in the Hunter electorate would not get a tax cut and would pay more tax under the Liberals and Nationals. Think about that for a second, Mr Deputy Speaker. Their plan is to tell those who are struggling that, if the Liberals and Nationals are elected, the relief that will be delivered from 1 July this year will be taken away and given to those people on $200,000 a year or more. How is that fair? The Liberals and Nationals are addicted to opposing cost-of-living relief. The only word they seem to know is 'no'.

The stage 3 tax cuts represent a transformative step forward for our nation, a step towards a future of opportunity, prosperity and fairness. By empowering individuals, stimulating economic activity and promoting equality within our tax system, these cuts lay the foundation for a stronger, more resilient Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. I'm amazed when I come into this place and listen to members opposite talk about the cost of living. It seems that they have finally awoken from their political slumber to realise that actually Australians are hurting right now. For 20 months this government has been distracted by so many other different things, and it has failed, at every point and every level, to address the cost-of-living issues that we've been talking about—that is, until the Prime Minister realised and said: 'I've got a problem here. I need to do something about this.'

It has taken this government 20 months to come up with something meaningful—albeit, for the average punter, we're talking about a tax reduction of $15 a week. I look at how much the average Australian family's costs have increased in the period since this government came to power, the extraordinary costs that the average family is now enduring. Rents are sky-high. We've seen 12 interest rate rises. The average mortgage holder in this country is now paying $24,000 more than they were under the coalition government, and that's after tax. We often don't seem to remember or recognise that it's after tax. Think about the average Australian family that is often, sadly, living from hand to mouth. Now, if they've got a mortgage, they are paying an additional $24,000 after tax. Their electricity bill has gone through the roof—far from the $275 reduction under Labor that the Prime Minister promised, a claim he has not repeated once since the election.

Rents have gone up because most landlords have a mortgage. If their mortgage goes up, rents will go up. Rents have gone up exponentially because this government is introducing over 1.5 million immigrants to this country, with no plan on where these people are going to work or live. That is having unbelievably drastic consequences for housing pressures. I am getting people contacting my office every day—I had another one today—with some really sad stories about young people and old people who can't find a house. A gentleman's mum contacted my office yesterday and said her son has five days until he's evicted and he's got nowhere to go. There is story after story after story.

This government talks big about housing. At the same time it's just pulled $160 million in funding from the Mooloolah River interchange in my electorate. Over a hundred houses were demolished to make way for the Mooloolah River interchange. Now, because of this government's slashing of infrastructure spending, the people who were living in over a hundred demolished houses may be homeless. Do the maths. On average, around two and a half people live in a house. I don't know where they've gone. Trying to find a house on the Sunshine Coast is virtually impossible.

This government is only now talking the big talk about cost of living because this Prime Minister realised that he was in trouble with the defeat at the referendum and because of the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are feeling. During the 90-second statements every single one of those opposite came in here and talked about the cost of living. When was the last time government members opposite talked about the cost of living until very recently? The government has the opposition's support for this bill because we are a party that supports lower taxes and smaller government.

They're slapping themselves on the back and congratulating themselves, on the backs of Australians that have never done it so hard. I was a carpenter in the 1980s in the 'recession that we had to have'—Paul Keating's recession. I've seen tough times as a carpenter. But although interest rates climbed to 18 per cent back then, there are more people doing it hard now. Perhaps it's because of my job that I'm exposed to people's difficulties. It doesn't matter where I go.

I opened Gateway Care's new facilities in Caloundra just before Christmas. When we were in government, we provided them with some funding to build a new shed. Gateway Care is like a Foodbank for the Sunshine Coast. They told me that they have got people turning up to Gateway Care who work; both mum and dad work. They might drive nice cars, but they are in real strife because they cannot make ends meet. When you look at those figures that I talked about earlier—an additional $24,000 for the average punter with the average mortgage, after tax—where can the average mum and dad find that sort of money? They can't. A lot of families saved up a lot of money during COVID, so a lot of those savings are being exhausted, but, equally, there are a lot of families in which mums and dads are having to go back and get a second job and, in some cases, a third job. For those members opposite to come in here and be slapping themselves on the back about how good this government purports to be, it is a direct affront to the pain and the suffering that Australians across this country are feeling, particularly in regional Queensland—places like where you live and I live, Mr Deputy Speaker.

There are things in this bill which the government supports. We support the lower tax bracket reducing down to 16 cents. That's a good thing. But, when it comes down to trying to ease the cost of living, I know that at 10 minutes to six—and it's 10 minutes to five back home—people will be driving to and from sport or will be just about to drive home from work or maybe from one job to the next job because they have to work two jobs, or maybe they're not taking their kids to sport, because they can't afford for their kids to do sport any more. Australians are doing it tough, and it grates on each and every single one of them to hear the government come in here and pat themselves on the back.

The reality is that the stage 3 tax cuts that we legislated when we were in government were supported by those members opposite, the government, when they were in opposition. They supported those changes. But now there's a Dunkley by-election and now the Prime Minister is under pressure as a result of his appalling leadership during the referendum. Surely his backbench was feeding information to him. 'Boss, we've got a real problem here. There are a lot of people out there hurting. You've got to do something.' As a result of the sad passing of Peta Murphy, we have the by-election in Dunkley. This by-election will be a test for this Prime Minister's leadership. He knows that as well as anybody. The reality is that's why these new tax cuts were born.

On more than a hundred occasions, this Prime Minister told us that this government was not going to change the legislated stage 3 tax cuts. 'My word is my bond,' he said. They told us they weren't going to change the franking credits. They told us they weren't going to make any changes to superannuation. Now they're telling us: 'Oh, there will be no changes to negative gearing. There will be no changes to the capital gains tax offsets.' Well, when Australians hear the Prime Minister speak, they have every single right to wonder whether what he is saying is truthful. There are only so many times you can break faith with the Australian people before the Australian people will call you out.

At least the member for Maribyrnong, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, ran at the 2019 election with, it has to be said, a very upfront approach to taxation policies and what Labor were going to do. We fought him on that, and the Australian people spoke very loudly, but at least the member for Maribyrnong had the intestinal fortitude to be honest and to nail his colours to the mast. This Prime Minister went to the 2022 election making numerous commitments from which he has since backtracked. Labor has gone against those commitments, and now Australians are wondering whether the person in the Lodge is someone who they can trust. That is a sad state of affairs.

Politicians cop a bad rap no matter what, doesn't matter what party is in government, but when the Prime Minister of the land stands up and says, 'You can trust me on this'—says it on over 100 occasions: 'We don't plan on making any changes,' and, 'My word is my bond'—Australians have a reasonable expectation that things will not change. When you break that bond, Australians are rightly able to question everything that comes out of that person's lips thereafter, and that person is the Prime Minister of this country.

The Liberal-National coalition has always stood for smaller government. It has always stood for lower taxes. For those opposite to try and mount some sort of an argument that we're not supporting these changes is clearly incorrect. It's manufacturing. At the end of the day, this bill will be supported by the coalition. That will be reflected in the votes and tallies. I look forward to making a further contribution later.

The Albanese government wants Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. That's why we are delivering a tax cut to every Australian who pays income tax and a bigger benefit to 84 per cent of Australians. I know that many Australians are doing it tough at the moment. The pandemic, the global economic downturn and two international conflicts have had far-reaching impacts on our economy here in Australia, and Australians, especially low- and middle-income earners, are under pressure. We've been tackling the most pressing challenges faced by Australians while also making responsible choices in the long-term interests of our country.

We're providing responsible cost-of-living relief without adding to inflationary pressures. That's why we have been delivering $23 billion in cost-of-living relief across child care, TAFE, Medicare, cheaper medicines, energy bill relief, affordable homes and paid parental leave. We're investing $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive, allowing 11.6 million Australians to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. We're reducing the cost of medicine by up to half for at least six million Australians. We're committing up to $3 billion on electricity bill relief to take pressure off more than five million eligible households and one million eligible small businesses. As a result, power bills are lower than they otherwise would have been. And, importantly, as Australian Bureau of Statistics data has confirmed, the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living relief has shaved 0.5 per cent off inflation. We've also increased the base rate of the JobSeeker payment and the youth allowance, and we've committed $1.9 billion to expand eligibility of single parent payments.

But we know more needs to be done. That's why from 1 July this year, through this bill, we will be delivering a tax cut to every taxpayer in Australia. Our policy will mean that Middle Australia will receive bigger tax cuts to help with cost-of-living pressures. We've made the hard choice to change our position to deliver these tax cuts. We're introducing these changes because we recognise the economic realities of 2024. We recognise that Australians are under pressure and deserve a plan that responds to the challenges they are facing. When the former government's tax plan was legislated five years ago, the world was a very different place. Their plan was legislated before a once-in-100-years pandemic, before higher interest rates driven by persistent international inflation and before two global conflicts and the ensuing global economic uncertainty. All of this put Australians under more sustained cost-of-living pressure. We recognise that, when circumstances change, changing policy is the right thing to do.

The tax cuts will have a real tangible difference for 13.6 million taxpaying Australians, and these tax cuts will make a difference to 2.9 million more people than would have benefited from the five-year-old Morrison tax plan. We want people to earn more, and we want them to keep more of what they earn. In my electorate in Melbourne's west, every single taxpayer will receive a tax cut under Labor's tax plan. Eighty-four thousand people in my electorate will get a tax cut. Seventy thousand people—that's almost 84 per cent of people in my electorate—will get a bigger tax cut. And 5.8 million women, 90 per cent of women taxpayers, will now receive a bigger tax cut. Ninety-eight per cent of teachers, 97 per cent of truckies, 96 per cent of cleaners, 91 per cent of police officers and 91 per cent of mechanics will get a bigger tax cut. More than 90 per cent of all Australians under 35 will receive a bigger tax cut. Under our plans, an early childhood educator who earns $69,000 a year will receive an additional $1,404 as a tax cut. Under the Morrison plan, they would have received nothing—not a cent.

These reforms make our tax system more progressive and more fair, and our plan returns bracket creep for all taxpayers and does more to reduce the impact on those who are most burdened by it. By dropping the two tax rates and lifting the two thresholds, we're giving everyone a tax cut and providing $359 billion in help with the cost of living. We are returning the most bracket creep to where we can do the most good in Middle Australia. In spite of the mendacious lines being run by those opposite, the average taxpayer will pay $21,635 less of their income in tax over the next decade. And, as identified by the Grattan Institute, the median taxpayer is still better off after 10 years. They found that a typical taxpayer, someone earning around $59,000, will pay cumulatively $8,040 less in tax over the next decade.

Those opposite don't like this bill. You only have to listen to their speeches to see how much this bill irritates them. The opposition leader would rather a fight than a fix. Listening to those opposite contort themselves over this bill to find a way to be outraged by it while also supporting it has really been something to behold. It's been a collective credibility bonfire. Credibility is an impediment to career progression on the opposition frontbench. The deputy Liberal leader understands this better than anyone. She has put in a really strong performance in destroying her credibility in her current role. She has had strong opposition from the shadow Treasurer, who labelled these tax cuts for all Australians as 'Marxism', before saying that he would vote for them. It takes a lot to be less credible than that, but the deputy Liberal leader has been putting in the work. As an MP who utterly capitulated on her former positions on live exports and on Palestine, the deputy leader has now added tax cuts to the bonfire of her policy credibility. When asked if the opposition would roll back Labor's tax cuts, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:

Well this is our position. This is absolutely our position …

Except, according to the Leader of the Opposition, it isn't. Well, it's hard to know what their position is. They've opposed it. They've said they'll roll it back. They've said they'll amend it. They've said they'll support it. They've said they'll take a different policy to the next election. You don't need to believe in numerology to see that this doesn't add up.

But, in their negativity, they reveal their true priorities. This week the member for Bowman stood up in this place, as a representative example of the kinds of contributions we've heard in this debate, to suggest that this bill meant that the government were 'killers of aspirations'. Whose aspirations was he talking about when he said this? He went on:

… what about the next generation of Australians, the next generation of aspirants … who aspire to one day own an investment property? Is the government proposing to kill off their aspiration to do so?

He really seems to think that the only aspirational people in this country are those who wish to own an investment property.

We are aspirational for all Australians, no matter who you are or where you come from. The people in my community in Melbourne's west are aspirational too. There is aspiration in every corner of my electorate. There are people working hard now to aspire to something better in the future for themselves and their family, right up and down the income ladder. People in Melbourne's west work hard every day to look after their family and their community. They are aspirational, working hard now and aspiring to something better for themselves and their family.

When I think of aspirational Australians, I think of Vietnamese Australian manufacturing workers in my electorate, working hard for decades—I think of one person in particular, working hard so that his daughter could get the grades she needed to become a doctor. I think of an Indian Australian truck driver, working hard, putting in the overtime to save the money that he needs to start his own business. I think of the Afghan Australian refugee working hard in a logistics job so that his six-year-old daughter could attend school for the very first time ever. I think of the Chinese Australian mum who has been able to continue with her career progression because of our cheaper child care reforms and paid parental leave.

If someone's aspiration is to buy an investment property, good luck to them. There's nothing wrong with that. That's great. But, if you're an MP in this House and that's the only aspiration that you can see, you're selling our country short; you're selling Australians short. Parents who are sacrificing everything to give their children the very best future they possibly can all deserve a tax cut, and they'll get one, thanks to the Albanese government, because we are delivering a tax cut to all Australians. We're delivering cost-of-living relief, no matter who you are or what you do. This is a tax cut right up and down the income ladder, which will fuel the aspirations of everyone, not only in my community but across Australia. It's part of an economic strategy that deals with the challenges of the present, while also preparing our nation to succeed in the future.

My earliest memory of Australian politics is 5 March 1983. I was 10 years old. Laura Branigan, Marvin Gaye, Kenny Rogers and Sheena Easton were in the top 10 playing on 3XY. I should've been in my room, of course, dancing around to 'Billie Jean' at the time, but it's fair to say that my affection for watching election results came to life very early. I am the only child of a single parent, and that election night in 1983 meant a great deal for my single parent and for what she could or could not do for herself and for me. My single parent, my mum, was at that time a doctor—a cardiothoracic surgeon, to be precise, a qualification that took her the better part of 20 years to acquire, with undergraduate study in medicine and science over seven years, five years of general surgical training and two years as a specialist fellow training at the Alfred, followed by two years at the Mass General in Boston and six months at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto in Canada, before she brought her skills back home to Australia and had me.

Having me, of course, was a huge risk for a woman who had just embarked on a career surrounded by men with not too much expectation of women being around, and, in particular, not forthright, bloody smart women like my mother coming into their midst. As I have explained elsewhere, in my first speech to this place, she went to extraordinary lengths to make sure I was safe and fed while she went back to work. My mum took just two weeks off when she had me, not because she was desperate to get back to work—even though my mother is the very definition of a careerist woman. She went back to work because she had to. Being self-employed, as most specialist surgeons are, she knew that no work equals no money.

So mum picked up the plumbing tools, as she would so often describe her surgical instruments, a week or so postpartum and went back to the operating theatre and the hospital wards. She would take me with her on the weekends to visit the patients on Saturdays and Sundays, and in the school holidays I would sit in her consulting suite and, in truly terrible handwriting, take patients' histories. In hindsight, I thank them for their patience, as I would interrogate their smoking and drinking habits and their next of kin and diligently write down their six-digit phone numbers.

When I got a bit older, sometimes her team would let me into the operating theatre. Fully dressed up in all the garb you need, I would stand on a small ladder and peer over the shoulders of the doctors and nurses and see their remarkable skill at work, with the human form converted into science and art. The patients would wake up an hour or so later in recovery and, like a cheery oompa-loompa, I would greet them with glee. It was my job to tell mum that they were awake so she could go in and check on how they were faring. More than once, I think, some went back to sleep, or maybe just passed out, wondering if they'd been in a dream where the doctors had all converted into midgets.

But on the night of 5 March 1983 my mum looked ashen. I couldn't understand why. 'Mum, why don't you look happy?' As the Hawke landslide rolled in, mum quietly said: 'It'll be okay. It's just going to be harder for me to send you to school now.' School was, of course, my world, my safe space, my joy, my mates, my curiosity and a fun park for a galloping brain, but it was also my parent—the parent Mum could not always be because, at least it felt this way at the time, her patients always came first. Every night after school she would spend hour after hour talking on the phone to the patients, their families, other doctors, oncologists and physicians. And words that would never normally appear in a 10-year-old's vocabulary, like adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, mesothelioma—I knew them all, and I knew exactly which words to listen out for to work out whether the conversation she was about to start on the phone after dinner was going to be a difficult one or an optimistic one.

You see, my mother did medicine the hard way. She charged patients who were in tough times the Medicare rebate, and sometimes not at all. She frowned on colleagues who charged the AMA rates. She watched her earnings carefully, and I realised sometime later that she did this so that she was able to send me to a good school—a great school—that did some of the parenting she could not always be available to do so that, when she couldn't be there to pick me up from school after play practice, debating or netball, which, frankly, was more often than not, someone would make sure I wasn't forgotten and got home.

Don't get me wrong—I should be fair—Liberal to the bootstraps, my mum loved Hawkey. There was something about his large, larrikin and articulate brilliance that cheered her greatly. But that night her pale face was all about what it meant for her ability to make ends meet and, specifically, it was all about Labor's approach to taxation policy. So, when I come to this place and talk about Labor's approach to taxation policy and its impact on aspiration, you know it comes from a little kid looking at her mother's face, thinking, 'Seriously? Could you work any harder?'

Australia is founded on aspiration. Sure, many were compelled to come here, but most came here willingly for a better chance for them and their families to get ahead in ways they could not in the country where they started out. It's what makes us so successful: having a go and taking a risk. I see that spirit across my electorate of Flinders every day—the small business, independent contractor and tradie heaven that Flinders is. We live well, surrounded by the sand, the hills and the sea, but people work their guts out. I see it every day.

People in Flinders still want to own a home. It's still a common aspiration. Roughly 40 per cent of my electorate own their home, 34 per cent have mortgages and about 20 per cent rent. High rates of home ownership have excellent outcomes for social cohesion and continuity when it comes to community participation. It's one of the reasons we have thriving footy clubs like the Somerville Junior Football Club. It's one of the reasons we have well-loved and much-used men's sheds, like the one I visited in Blairgowrie just before Christmas. It's why our rotary clubs are full and fantastic, as demonstrated by the Rotary Club of Mt Martha on Australia Day, and also in their generous and constant reach and assistance across the peninsula. Don't get me started on my local Probus clubs, where retired leaders across the spectrum of Australian industry share their wisdom on contemporary issues. I thank the Probus Club of Main Ridge for their recent invitation to talk about social media. But with each day the aspiration of home ownership in my electorate gets harder to realise.

On 3 February the Herald Sun published a table, based on PropTrack data, setting out what you need to earn to be able to buy a house or unit in Flinders, assuming a 20 per cent deposit, which is what you need to avoid mortgage lenders insurance, and a 6.2 per cent interest rate, even though at present some interest rates are as high as nine per cent. To buy a house in Somerville you need to earn $159,000 a year. To buy a house in Crib Point or Tyabb you need to earn $152,000 a year. To buy a house in Capel Sound you need to earn $144,000 a year. To buy a house in Hastings you need to earn $137,000 a year. These are entry-point homes in my electorate of Flinders. If you want to buy in McCrae, Mornington, Mt Martha, Safety Beach or Rye, you have to earn more than $200,000 a year. Families striving to buy or pay down a mortgage in Crib Point or Capel Sound are not 'the rich' or 'the top end', as Labor's demonisation of this demographic would have you believe. They are working their butts off making ends meet, and yet they are exactly the people Labor will tell you aren't deserving of keeping their own money in their own pocket to use as they see fit.

I am so tired of hearing about Labor's tax cuts. They're all we've heard about for two weeks. But these aren't Labor's tax cuts; they're the coalition's tax cuts with some crafty, self-serving, ideological class warfare bait and switch at the last minute, designed to win a by-election in my neighbouring electorate of Dunkley: 'Here's the sugar pill on 1 July. Ignore my broken promises, all 100 of them, to deliver the stage 3 tax cuts in full. Ignore all my broken promises on energy bills, where I told you you'd get a $275 discount. Ignore my promise back in 2018 to electrify the rail line to Baxter.' Let me read you the now Prime Minister's press release dated 31 July 2018—bless him, because it's still on his website—in which Anthony Albanese, as shadow minister for infrastructure, said:

A … Labor Government will move quickly to deliver the much-needed Frankston to Baxter Rail Upgrade, building on the significant investment the Andrews Labor Government has made in Frankston infrastructure.

Federal Labor is an advocate of the electrification and duplication of the Stony Point Line to Baxter to improve train services for commuters across Dunkley and on the Mornington Peninsula.

In 2016, Federal Labor committed funding for a business case to ensure the project could proceed as soon as possible upon the election of a Federal Labor Government.

Hmm.

Currently thousands of Dunkley and Peninsula residents drive and park at Frankston, Kananook or Seaford stations because the Metro line service ends at Frankston.

A Federal Labor Government will electrify and duplicate the track to Baxter, giving commuters better access to high quality public transport and park-and-ride options.

It sounds great, but the Prime Minister cancelled funding for this project—all $225 million that the coalition had provided for it back in budgets past—after his 90-day review, which then became a 200-day review, and he snatched $300 million out of infrastructure from the Mornington Peninsula to pad highways somewhere around the current infrastructure minister's electorate of Ballarat.

A couple of weeks ago, I joined the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, together with our sensational candidate for the by-election in Dunkley, Nathan Conroy, to announce a future coalition government would provide up to $900 million to electrify the rail line and reduce parking congestion around Frankston. It will also provide study and work opportunities for my residents in Baxter and, in time, further down the Stony Point line. Here we are fixing yet another broken Albanese government promise, like the hundred promises he made before to keep the stage 3 tax cuts in full.

Today on the front page of the Australian we read that Labor's deception will hit the middle ground, not the super-rich or the top end as the Prime Minister would like you to think the tradies, subbies, landscapers and small-business families in my electorate are. Patrick Commins and Geoff Chambers write on the front page of the Australian today:

Sparkies, paramedics, police officers and accountants will be long-term losers under Labor's stage three tax changes, as a major credit rating agency says Anthony Albanese's revamped tax cuts will likely be more inflationary than Scott Morrison's original plan.

Under Labor's tax changes, electricians, school principals, cops, train drivers and others will pay more tax under the proposed legislation in a decade, analysis by The Australian has revealed.

Bigger tax cuts for middle-income earners promoted by the Prime Minister and Jim Chalmers are projected to erode over time as bracket creep captures more Australians under a higher 37c tax rate. In 10 years, Australians earning the equivalent of more than $104,000 today will be worse off under Labor's redistribution of the tax relief.

Oh, dear. The truth comes out again.

Labor deceived the Australian people when it went to the election in May 2022 with a suite of what can only be called Liberal-lite propositions. As we have seen over the last year, can you trust Labor on energy policy? You cannot. As we have seen over the last few months, can you trust Labor on defence, national security or community safety? No, you cannot. As we will see with this bill today, can you trust them on taxation policy? No, you cannot.

Add to that the avalanche of industrial relations and employment changes designed to stifle innovation, risk-taking, growth and productivity in the small- and medium-business sector. In this place, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony 'Bring Back the Beeper' Burke, is single-handedly, although encouraged and abetted by his union masters, strangling the lifeblood of Australia's small-business sector, crushing ambition and the great Australian courage in having a go and creating an opportunity for others.

The opposition will not oppose this bill. After all, without the opposition and its nine-year term of careful management of the Australian economy, there would be no tax cuts today. I can't remember the last time Labor delivered tax cuts. I do vaguely remember Prime Minister Paul Keating reassuring the Australian people before the 1993 election that the tax cuts he promised weren't just a promise; they were the law—l-a-w law. But then, in what appears to be a crafty but now customary switcheroo for the Australian Labor Party, Keating went off to the National Press Club after the election and told everyone that he'd had another think and that it couldn't be done anymore. Does that sound familiar? The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, equally said he had a mandate for this change to the legislated tax cuts programmed by the coalition. And how did he get the renewed mandate? He went down to the National Press Club. Well, blow me down. If you can just fundamentally break a contract with the Australian people by going to the Press Club, why didn't anyone tell us? Last time we decided to change taxation policy, we gave the electorate the chance to throw us out both at the 1998 election, at which the proposed GST introduction and the choice the Australian public had were made clear to them, and then immediately afterwards at the 2001 election. That is transparency, that is accountability, and in that the Australian Labor Party has a lot to learn.

I too rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and I am very pleased to be speaking on this very important bill. It is very important because this bill means that all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut from 1 July this year. Of course, this is on top of the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living relief, which is already being delivered right across the country in the form of cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE, building more social and affordable homes, and increasing rent assistance. These, combined with the tax cuts, are vitally important.

These tax cuts mean, for example, that in my electorate on the New South Wales North Coast every taxpayer will receive a tax cut this year. In fact, 71,000 taxpayers in Richmond will receive that tax cut, with the average tax cut being $1,384. I will just put in perspective what our tax cuts are delivering compared to what we saw previously with the Liberals and Nationals. Under our plan, under these new tax cuts, 61,000 residents in my electorate will receive a bigger tax cut than they would have otherwise under the Liberals and Nationals. That is a huge amount for my electorate, and what a difference it will make for people. Certainly there has been a very positive response from my community in terms of the fact that Labor is delivering these tax cuts for so many people across the community.

Our tax cuts are very good for Middle Australia, good for working families, good for women, good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy. The tax cuts will make a real difference for those 13.6 million taxpayers who will be receiving that tax cut—2.9 million more than would have benefited under the previous government's plans. That means 11.5 million taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut, and it means that 5.8 million women will receive a bigger tax cut. People such as nurses, teachers and police are some of the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut.

I want to discuss this in the context of Labor's strong support for workers and improving working conditions right across the board. Whether it's job security or working conditions, it is only Labor that consistently delivers this support. Particularly, our right-to-disconnect laws are vitally important for workers across the country, and that is especially true for police and emergency service personnel. I am a former frontline police officer, and I know how important it is for police to have really good working conditions in place, especially the right to disconnect.

What are we seeing? We are seeing the opposition leader opposing it and claiming that he will repeal it. We finally see an election policy from the Liberals and Nationals, and what is it? They're going to repeal all these laws that create better working conditions for Australians, including the right to disconnect. That's really appalling when it comes to police officers. I can tell you, as a former police officer, how important it is to have those working conditions in place to make sure that police have that work-life balance. Our police do an amazing job under often very difficult circumstances, and it is Labor who backs them.

It really shows how out of touch the opposition leader is that he wants to repeal these laws. It is quite disturbing and appalling. Yesterday we saw the Police Federation of Australia come out and condemn the opposition for their stance. In fact, they have said that the opposition's measures are disrespectful and wrong. I stand with the Police Federation of Australia and I stand with all police officers. Indeed, many of the former police colleagues I have spoken to also condemn the opposition leader for wanting to take away important workplace rules. As I said, our police work very hard, and Labor delivers for them, whether it's their working conditions or their tax cuts. For example, a police officer on $110,000 a year will now get a tax cut of $2,400 under Labor. We certainly stand with our police forces, but the opposition leader doesn't, and he is certainly out of touch.

In terms of tax cuts, parents, particularly those with young children, will be meaningfully supported to return to work under the government's tax cut changes through increases to their take-home pay. I want to speak about what a positive impact this will particularly have for women. I am very proud to represent a government that is absolutely committed to gender equality. First and foremost, let me emphasise our government's resolute dedication to take real action on gender equality. We understand that achieving true equality requires more than just words; it demands concrete steps to achieve that real change. Our commitment to gender equality is directly reflected in these tax cuts, because every single taxpaying woman in this country will receive a tax cut. Now, thanks to this government, 90 per cent of taxpaying women will receive an even bigger tax cut, and that certainly will make a huge difference. These targeted measures are essential in narrowing the gender pay gap and promoting economic equality.

As I've said, Labor's new tax plan is part of a suite of cost-of-living relief for women. Over our past two budgets we've made significant investments to support women across various sectors and right across the board, through investment in child care, paid parental leave, women's safety, family law, workplace safety, women's health and fair wages. We have placed women at the centre of our economic agenda, whether it be through the Jobs and Skills Summit, the employment white paper or recommendations from our Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, along with analysis contained in the white paper, integral to developing our national strategy to achieve gender equality. By investing in women's education, training and entrepreneurship, we're not only fostering economic growth we're creating a much more equitable society for all. As a government we are committed to leading the charge and change and creating a future where every individual—everyone, regardless of gender—has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. It is through this commitment to real change that we can do that.

As I said, these tax cuts have widespread benefits. Under the proposed changes, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a larger tax cut. This will significantly boost the take-home pay of Australians on modest incomes and people working part time. Someone on the average wage in Australia, which is around $73,000, will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year, which is more than double what they would have received under the Liberals and Nationals. This is particularly important for those living in regional and rural Australia. As we know, people in these communities earn less than people in the city, so it makes a huge difference percentage-wise for people living in regional areas like mine and throughout regional and rural Australia. Labor are always very cognisant of making sure we are delivering for people in country Australia. We know how important that is.

These tax cuts will make a huge difference, and our changes will also deliver a better, more progressive tax system. By dropping two tax rates and lifting two thresholds, we're giving everyone a tax cut and providing a significant amount of help right across the board. The Albanese Labor government are introducing these changes because we recognise the economic realities of 2024. Australians are under real pressure right now and deserve a tax plan that responds to the challenges they are facing every day.

I'm sure we all agree that five years ago, when the coalition initially legislated these stage 3 tax cuts, we were in a very different place. That was before the pandemic, before persistent inflation, before higher interest rates, before global conflicts and before global uncertainty. All of those factors have put Australians under much more sustained cost-of-living pressures. From talking to people, we know the cost-of-living pressures they are experiencing. When circumstances change, changing policy is the responsible thing to do to provide support to people. Cutting taxes is one measure that can help provide cost-of-living relief.

We are getting wages moving again, bringing inflation under control and driving fairer prices for Australian consumers. Also, really importantly, we are providing cost-of-living relief in the form of energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, more income support and the biggest boost to rental assistance in 30 years. We spent more than $20 billion on that cost-of-living measures package. We are providing this cost-of-living relief in a responsible way that doesn't add to inflationary pressures, while laying the foundations for a stronger and more resilient economy.

This bill is all about delivering a tax cut for every taxpayer and more tax relief for people to help with cost-of-living pressures. We've heard a measure of negativity from all the opposition speakers. They don't like our changes. They'd prefer wages to be lower. We know that Liberals and Nationals want Australians to work more for less money. We don't. We want to assist them by giving them tax cuts and ensuring they've got cost-of-living relief because, in comparison to the Liberals and Nationals, Labor are absolutely committed to providing support for Australians through tax cuts and cost-of-living relief.

In conclusion, I am very proud to be speaking on this bill because it will have a real impact and deliver real assistance to people by providing tax cuts right across the country. It will be particularly good for people in regional and rural Australia and will have a major impact on and provide benefits to women in our society. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. 'My word is my bond.' We've all heard this statement and we all know who said it. But it has now come to light that this is not the case. The Prime Minister has gone back on his word, changed his mind and flip-flopped again. As a matter of fact, he's done more flip-flops than a Moscow circus and told more stories—tall stories, I might add—than Charles Dickens.

The government asked Treasury to look at some options, including revising stage 3 tax cuts, on 11 December. But, following that, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer stated at least a dozen times that they hadn't changed their position, including when the Prime Minister said, 'We are not reconsidering that position.' What a fibber. But we're getting used to this. We're getting used to the tall stories and the deceit from the other side. What about the reduction of $275 in power prices that was promised before the election? This wasn't a slip of the tongue by the Prime Minister. He stated this 97 times. So we're getting used to the Prime Minister just saying whatever he feels like whenever he feels like it.

But what I'm really concerned about is this: What is this teaching our younger generation? What example does that set? How hard is this for the teachers who are saying: 'Boys and girls, you must tell the truth. Boys and girls, do the right thing'? They'd be thinking, 'Why do I have to do that, when we have an example like our Prime Minister?' who, let's face it, is very, very careless with the truth.

'No-one will be left behind.' That's another broken promise, because everyone today in Australia is worse off under this Labor government. Australians are living in a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis. On this side of the House, we've been talking about the dire situation for Australian families for months, but it seems the penny has only just dropped for the Albanese Labor government. Now they've finally caught up, but they're not going to do anything about it till July. The Australian people can't wait. They need help now.

I realise the Prime Minister was totally focused on his referendum, a referendum that was designed to divide the nation on the basis of race—and what happened? A $450 million spend of taxpayers' money on the failed referendum. Australians have seen their living standards collapse by 8.6 per cent, or $8,000, under this hapless Albanese Labor government. If you have a mortgage, it's a lot more than that. Everything has been going up under Labor, including power prices. What they tried to do with power prices clearly didn't work. Power prices are actually increasing. Interest rates have been increasing, increasing, increasing. The Albanese Labor government seem to blame everyone else. They tried to blame Putin. They tried to blame the invasion of Ukraine. They try to blame anything they can think of. It's a wonder they're not blaming lightning strikes in Zimbabwe! But what is really happening here is that Labor are enhancing the inflation. They've spent another $209 billion that they've added into this economy. While they're telling you at home to pull your belt in and do the right thing and be conservative in your household, they're just spraying it around willy-nilly—$209 billion extra.

Grocery prices have gone up on their watch by nearly 10 per cent, and fruit and veggie prices have gone through the roof. That's why the Nationals demanded that the ACCC do an inquiry into what farmers are receiving at the farm gate versus what the big supermarkets—Coles, Woolworths, IGA—are selling it for. This was very sensible policy to thresh out, because what happens in a supply-and-demand situation when the supermarkets charge too much? People can't afford to buy something. It sits on the shelf. Then farmers do not get a return. But, if we do this and actually keep our farmers farming and give them the right return on their investment, they will then be able to grow more and stay in business longer, and the average taxpayer will end up better off at the check-out.

These tax changes are a political response from the government, not a cost-of-living response. This is more about the Dunkley by-election than a genuine tax reform, but Australians can see through this deceitful Prime Minister. An analysis done by the Australian has revealed that, under Labor's tax changes, many essential workers will pay more under the proposed legislation in the next 10 years. Those who are at risk of having less money in their pockets are electricians, school principals, paramedics, police officers, train and tram drivers, engineers, construction managers—and the list goes on. Sparkies, paramedics, police officers and more will be long-term losers under Labor's stage 3 tax cuts. As a major credit rating agency says, 'Anthony Albanese's revamped tax cuts will more likely be inflationary than the original plan. The proposed tax cuts will leave essential workers worse off in the future as their average tax rates push higher and bracket creep captures more Australians.'

Last week we heard from the Treasurer that these changes will mean more relief for workers to help with the cost of living. The truckies, the nurses and the police officers will get a bigger tax cut. What the Treasurer forgot to mention was that these benefits will be temporary and our essential frontline workers will lose out in the long run. By 2034—just 10 years away—66 professions that are reportedly going to benefit from these proposed tax cuts will be worse off and paying more under Labor's ill-thought-out changes. This is less about genuine tax reform and more about short-term political tactics. A report released by SMP Global said the Labor government's proposed tax cuts could be more inflationary than the initial coalition government's proposed stage 3 tax cuts.

If the Albanese government is true in its intention to help Australians, why did they abolish the low- and middle-income tax offset? This tax offset, which delivered a tax break of up to $1,500 for people earning up to $126,000, was quietly stopped by this tricky Albanese Labor government in June 2022. But many people didn't realise this and the massive impact it may have on their home budget—until they receive their 2022-2023 tax refund, which will either be drastically smaller or disappear altogether, or they'll be lumped with a tax bill. And this is right in the middle of a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis.

The low- and middle-income tax offset did exactly what it was called. It provided a tax offset for low- or middle-income earners: anyone with a taxable income of $126,000 or less. This offset varied depending on your income. Let me put it in simple terms. Earners of less than $37,000 received $675. For earners of between $37,001 and $48,000, the offset increased steadily up to $1,500. Earners of income between $48,001 and $90,000 received the full $1,500, and gradually this became less, with no offset at the end, at $126,000. Again I ask the question: if the Albanese Labor government want the income earner to keep more, why would they be abolishing something that is designed specifically for the low- and middle-income earners?

The coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes, which is why we will not oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c. We are the party of lower taxes. We are the party of business. We are the party that can manage money. My fundamental belief is that in this country you should be able to earn a quid and, more importantly, keep a quid. We support small business. Small business is the backbone of the nation. When you're in small business and you finish your day and sit down with maybe a beer or a wine, or, if you're fortunate enough, a Bundy and Coke, you can say, 'Hey, we did all right today, so let's expand our business, or let's put someone else on.' That's how wealth is created in this country.

The coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that will keep the stage 3 tax cuts reform. It will be a package that will give immediate relief and also pass the long-term test. We are committed to fighting bracket creep. We are the party of aspiration, because, when there is incentive, people will work hard and strive to accomplish their best. We, on this side of the House, understand that hard work supports a strong economy, and we want every Australian to get ahead. But what we all know, and what everybody knows, is that we have a Prime Minister who tells porky pies. I will finish with a poem that best sums up the Prime Minister, and I will respect the parliament and the parliamentary procedure with what I say here. The poem is quite simple. 'Untruther, untruther, pants on fire.'

In my time in this place, I do not recall a piece of legislation coming before us that has caused so much indecision and vacillation amongst coalition members. In fact, listening to the speeches—and I've listened to quite a few of them—it's clear that they are all over the place with their response to this legislation. The fact is that this is good legislation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 has the support of the majority of Australians. It is good legislation because it is the right thing to do, and members opposite know that. That is why they are in such confusion.

The reality is that coalition members don't really want to support this legislation, but they know they have to because the Australian people would not forgive them if they didn't. They come into the chamber, trying to justify their support on one hand, while on the other hand looking at how they can criticise it. The reality is that this legislation has the support of the Australian people because 84 per cent of Australian taxpayers will be better off under Labor's stage 3 tax cuts. Nearly seven in eight taxpayers will be better off under this legislation. Nine out of 10 women taxpayers will be better off under this legislation. Every taxpayer gets a tax break. That includes those earning less than $45,000, who are probably in the greatest need bracket out there and who would have got nothing under the coalition government's stage 3 tax cuts.

Most importantly, this legislation addresses one of the key features that is debated and discussed in this parliament each and every day, and that is the cost of living, because this legislation provides cost-of-living relief to more families struggling and unable to make ends meet. It goes directly towards addressing one of the issues that we have debated in this place over recent months more than any other. I hear members opposite who come into the chamber and, quite rightly, point out that the cost of living is affecting people in their community. They talk about the hardship that those people are experiencing. But what I don't hear are the solutions for how to deal with those cost-of-living hardships. I simply hear criticism of the government but no meaningful solutions being put on the table.

If they genuinely cared about those people who are doing it tough, perhaps they would come in and propose some solutions and urge the government to take them up or embrace them so that we could, in fact, provide the help that they believe the people out there in the community actually need. It begs the question: if they really don't want to support this legislation—I listened to the last speaker say that there are so many faults with it, that in years to come people will actually be worse off and so on—why are they actually supporting it? Why are they coming into this place and saying, 'We'll support it, but it's terrible legislation'? Really, it's either one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

The reality is that deep down they know that the Albanese government has responded to the needs of the community and is doing the right thing by modifying the stage 3 tax cuts in the way that it has. What it will mean is that it's not only good for individuals but good for the economy more broadly, and that ultimately flows back to more certainty and security for people throughout Australia. If people are going to get a bigger tax break, they will keep more of the money they earn. If people keep more of the money they earn, it is more likely that they will take on more work and do more hours. It is more likely that they will get involved in employment to a much higher level than they otherwise would because they know that they will keep more of what they earn.

I heard the last speaker talk about small business. Can I say I totally accept that small business throughout Australia is so important. It is important to the individual business owners who, in many cases, have invested their life savings. The services they provide are critical to local communities, and throughout the country small business is probably the single biggest employer if viewed as an industry sector. This will be good for small business, because most of the money that is going back in the form of tax breaks will go to people that are in the greatest need—people who will spend that money on goods and services in their local community. That means that it is money that will go directly into the small businesses in and around the communities where these people live. So this legislation is not only good for individuals but also good for small business and the economic results. Once those small businesses do better, they can remain viable too. They will employ more people. As we all know, small businesses are also the greatest supporters of the local community facilities and sports facilities in and around them, so the whole community benefits because of it.

Under the stage 3 tax cuts that were proposed by the previous government, most of the money would have gone to the top end of earners. That means that that money would very likely have been spent in larger amounts on, perhaps, overseas holidays or luxury goods, which don't give that same level of support to the small businesses that those opposite claim they are so concerned about.

We often talk about the cost of living being blamed on or attributed to the inflationary pressures on providers of goods and services—that is, inflation drives up the cost of living. But that is not always the case. From my observations, some providers of goods and services are simply exploiting the cost-of-living narrative and using it as an excuse to jack up their prices. That also applies to local, state and federal governments, who are also increasing their fees and charges. In some places and at some times, they are doing so to an unreasonable level, because they know they can. They don't operate in a competitive environment, and they simply do so because they're able to.

Of course, there are also businesses that engage in price-gouging. Again, we've heard plenty of comment about that. Can I say it is not just the two major supermarket chains that are doing that; it is happening across the board in so many different areas. I refer to airlines—I'm sure every member in this place will be able to understand where I'm going with this—where airline prices, at times, have been absolutely exorbitant and unnecessarily so. We're seeing it in the banks. I saw today that one of the largest major banks, the CBA, has suggested that its profits will only be some $5 billion. All of the four major banks made record profits last year, yet their fees and charges don't ever seem to come down, nor do their interest charges when the Reserve Bank cash rate moves. They are very quick to put it up but not so quick to bring it back down. They're still making huge profits whilst they cut their services and increase their charges.

Energy retailers are doing exactly the same. We also see it with medical professionals, and consultants and professionals in other areas. They know that people are perhaps in a corner, with no option but to use their service, and they just charge whatever they like. Unfortunately, whether it's someone who's trapped because they have a medical problem and have to see a specialist of some sort or whether it's someone caught up in a bank loan, sometimes people have nowhere else to go and have to wear the unnecessarily high charges that are imposed on them.

We also know that inequality in this country is increasing and has been over the last decade or so. I want to quote from a media release about an Oxfam report from January 2023. I know it is one year old, but the trend in the statistics pretty much explains what is happening right now. The report highlights how the superrich are getting richer at the expense of the world's poor. I'll quote from the release, because there are two or three sentences in it that I think sum up how the world is travelling and show how here in Australia we are falling back even further than other countries with respect to inequality. It says:

The richest 1 percent grabbed nearly two-thirds of all new wealth—

that is, $42 trillion—

created since 2020—

only a two-year period—

almost twice as much money as the bottom 99 percent of the world's population

That's one of Oxfam's statements. They also say:

During the past decade, the richest 1 percent had captured around half of all new wealth.

The third quote is:

The report shows that 95 food and energy corporations have more than doubled their profits in 2022.

The last quote, which I believe is the critical one relating to this legislation and inflation more broadly, is:

Excess corporate profits have driven at least half of inflation in Australia, the US and the UK.

I'll repeat that: excess corporate profits have driven at least half of inflation in Australia, the US and the UK. The point being made by that quote and by the report is that the inflationary pressures are coming from those people who are price gouging in what they are charging. They are making superprofits whilst people struggle, and governments have to fill the gap by providing different kinds of services in order to help the public they represent.

Another quote from the same release is:

The World Bank says we are likely seeing the biggest increase in global inequality and poverty since WW2.

That trend is equally evident in Australia today. When so much wealth in this country is being pocketed by the top 10 per cent of income earners, whilst less than seven per cent of real per adult economic growth goes to the rest of the people, that is absolutely something to worry about. With respect to what has happened over the last decade, it was members opposite who were in government. It wasn't this side of the House who were in office; it was a coalition government that allowed inequality to grow as it has.

The issue of price gouging is obviously of concern, and there are inquiries taking place right now with respect to groceries and the like. Back in 1973, the Whitlam government brought in the Prices Justification Tribunal. That tribunal was subsequently done away with, but it seems to me that there is a good case for something similar being reinstated in this country. All too often I hear concerns from people across my electorate—and I'm sure other members hear the same—about the price gouging going on across a whole range of areas. There is only one way to fix it, and that is to have a proper commission or tribunal in place with the authority to act when price gouging occurs.

In the time I have left I want to respond briefly to some of points made by opposition speakers with respect to this legislation. One of them is bracket creep. I say to members opposite: bracket creep has always been a part of and a problem with the Australian taxation system, and it is a matter that can and should be addressed separately from this legislation. It has nothing to do with the legislation before us in a direct sense. It is something that certainly is worthy of being discussed, but it can be addressed separately. Members talk about bracket creep and the difference it will make in 10 years time, but there's a lot of water to go under the bridge in the next 10 years. I don't have a crystal ball—and neither does anyone else here—as to what might be the case with respect to the tax that's being paid then.

The other issue is that real wages have fallen, and I've heard members talk about that. Again, what did members opposite do when they were in government to support wage growth in this country? Absolutely nothing. Wages stagnated under their watch. In fact, I have never heard any member opposite come in and talk about increasing and improving wages for workers throughout this country. I've heard them talking about the low-income tax offset that was brought in by their government and how we could have continued it. It was never intended to continue past 2022. Their government brought it in as a short-term measure, and we simply applied that policy when Labor came to office. The last thing I will talk about is aspiration. How insulting is it to suggest that people on low incomes do not have aspiration and that it's only people on high incomes who do?

This is good legislation. It complements other measures that this government has brought in to try and help with cost of living, such as cheaper child care, tripling the GP bulk-billing incentive, cheaper medicines, energy bill relief, rent assistance and so on. It's good legislation. That's why members opposite are supporting it, and that's why the Australian public are supporting it even more strongly.

I thank the member for Makin, who raised a couple of points that I'll touch on at the start. Firstly, he mentioned the low- and middle-income tax offset, which, yes, was a temporary measure that was brought in by the previous coalition government during times of extreme uncertainty and financial stress for many people in the middle of the COVID pandemic. It did have a sunset clause, but it is up to governments to look at the situation and review whether such sunset clauses are appropriate. Last year, when inflation was running rampant and cost of living was really starting to bite households across the country, all we heard the government talk about was the Voice. We didn't hear them mention the low- and middle-income tax offset once. It would have been a very simple thing for the Treasurer, in his budget, to have a look at the situation and the cost-of-living squeeze that Australian families were under and to extend the low- and middle-income tax offset for an undefined period until we came out at the other side of this current financial crisis. Thank you, Member for Makin, for raising the low- and middle-income tax offset. I don't think it's been aired and ventilated enough during this debate.

I stand today to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. It's in my DNA that lower taxes are better for everybody in this nation, whether they be low-income earners or high-income earners. The more money can be left in the pay packets of Australian workers, the better, and I will support that every time.

I would prefer it if the bill had been named the 'stage 3 cost-of-living tax cuts', because that would have reminded people that it was preceded by stage 1 and stage 2, which were part of the overall package. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I recall from the debate back when the initial package was passed that someone on $60,000 a year received, over both stages, around $2,000 additional in their pay packet, reducing their tax burden from around $10,000 to $8,000. On top of that, as I've previously mentioned, they also received the low- and middle-income tax offset during that period of great uncertainty and difficulty during the COVID pandemic. That puts a bit of perspective on this particular debate, where we've come from and where we are today.

We can't discuss this issue and talk about this legislation without looking at the issue of trust. There are 1.3 million Australians who will be worse off after this legislation passes. They had legislated tax cuts they had been looking at for the last five years. They have been thinking: 'Okay, if I go that extra five, 10 yards on buying the house, I will be receiving a significant tax cut on 1 July 2024, so I will factor that into my household budget. I'll factor putting the kid into an independent school. I want to give them the best opportunity.' They did that on the basis that on 1 July 2024 they would receive a tax cut, and that was reassured I think over 100 times by the Prime Minister—that that tax cut would take place. He looked down the barrel of a camera on many occasions and assured those 1.2 million Australians.

Those on the other side don't have a lot of time for people who are earning high-level incomes over $135,000, but the fact is they voted for that legislation five years ago, and those people who were banking on that extra income had every right to believe the Prime Minister. They had every right to think that on 1 July 2024 they would be receiving extra money in their pay packets. Budgets were done around that, plans were made, and today we are debating taking those tax cuts away from them, tax cuts that have been enshrined in legislation for five years now. That is the most egregious broken promise that I have seen in my 10 years in this place.

The Australian people generally cut politicians a bit of slack. They understand that sometimes situations change. But when they have been reassured over 100 times, as recently as the middle of January, that these tax cuts wouldn't be tampered with then the Australian people, not just the 1.3 million people who won't be receiving those tax cuts, generally will take a fairly dim view of that. They will look at the motivation for it. It is all about cost of living now. We are hearing Labor members stand up in question time and in 90-second statements, and it is all about cost of living. Last year it was all about the Voice; we barely heard the phrase 'cost of living' in this place.

The cynics out there, and there are probably a few cynics in here, might think, 'We've got a by-election coming up in Dunkley and perhaps the polling isn't looking all that good.' Perhaps the message was coming through that cost of living was really starting to bite in electorates like Dunkley. So all of a sudden we have a complete backflip on a promise, on a piece of legislation that has been enshrined for the last five years, a few weeks out from a by-election. There are a lot of people out there who are thinking the motivation for this is not quite as altruistic as it might have been made out to be in this place over the last few days. It might be something a little more base—that is, to try to get over the line in Dunkley and save Prime Minister's job.

We have heard a lot about the cost of living and how it is impacting on families and I see that across my electorate. There is no question about that. These tax cuts for the lower and middle-income people will be greatly appreciated. I have no problem with that—good on them—and I'm glad that we can support this legislation. But I also feel that those 1.3 million Australians who had every right to bank on those tax cuts coming through on 1 July have been betrayed. The coalition, while we are supporting these tax cuts, will be taking a tax package to the next election which will deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes. That is something that the coalition has been committed to since day one of my election.

We need to fight bracket creep. Once again, my friend the member for Makin mentioned bracket creep as if it's something that's a bit too hard: 'It's been part of the landscape for a long time, so let's keep it separate from this particular debate.' But the whole point of the tax package that was voted for by the coalition and the Labor Party—stages 1, 2 and 3—was to deliver tax cuts but also to address bracket creep. Of course, by taking away those stage 3 tax cuts we're back to the old situation when somebody progresses up through the ranks, gets a promotion, works a bit harder, gets a new job that pays a bit better—and for people in my electorate of O'Connor, the mining industry is a great opportunity for people to get into those higher-paying jobs—and hits $135,000 a year. I know people in here say they're filthy-rich people who don't deserve a break, but there are a lot of people in my electorate on that sort of money who are hardworking miners, truck drivers and farmers—people who work really hard and do earn a good quid, and good on 'em; they deserve to keep every cent. They deserve, as they move up through the ranks and earn more money, which everybody aspires to, to keep the bulk of that money, rather than have it taken back through bracket creep.

So 1.8 million taxpayers will be worse off. I have to correct the record; I was using the number 1.3 million. Not only will those 1.8 million be worse off but over the next 10 years there are going to be around 4½ million who will be worse off as this insidious bracket creep takes effect. We've seen the effect of bracket creep on the current government's budget. They talk very proudly of the surplus they've recorded, and I for one think that's a very worthy goal, reducing the budget surplus. But personal income tax receipts have risen by 27 per cent in the past 18 months. That's because there are more people in work than perhaps there historically have been, although they inherited record-low unemployment. But it's also because bracket creep is sneaking up and taking an extra bite of people's pay packet. It's as simple as that. It's a huge amount of money that has come out of the pay packets of Australian people. It's a massive amount of money and it needs to be addressed, and that's what the stage 3 tax cuts are all about.

To go back to the Prime Minister's integrity and whether he can be believed going forward, this is not the first promise he's broken. He made a promise on 93 occasions before the election that there'd be a $275 reduction in energy bills. People are not seeing that. People are questioning whether that was a promise that was given in good faith. He said there'd be an increase in real wages. There hasn't been an increase in real wages. And of course he promised he wouldn't touch the stage 3 tax cuts and, as we've seen, that's another broken promise. But now anybody who's got a negatively geared property or aspires to own a negatively geared property is under the gun. And when the Prime Minister denies that they're going after those people who've got a negatively geared property, who can put any store in his word whatsoever?

I say to those opposite—particularly the Greens, who aren't here—who think that negatively geared rental properties are the plaything of the rich and famous, that rich people don't worry about buying rental properties and having to deal with tenants and so on. For the wage earner, the nurse or the policeman, it's their one opportunity to actually get a bit of wealth over and above their family home, which they are probably paying off a mortgage for, and their super. It's their one chance to make a bit of wealth and set themselves up for retirement. They are the people who invest in rental properties. They're not high-wage earners. They're just people who want to have a go, get ahead, set themselves up for a comfortable retirement and maybe leave something to their kids one day or be able to help their kids out. They are the people who invest in rental properties.

Finally, being a proud Western Australian, I can only reiterate and express my concern about the future of the GST deal. We know that, over here on the east coast, we've got every premier and every economist calling for the end of the GST deal, which the previous finance minister Mattias Corman and treasurer Scott Morrison put in place to rectify—

And Peter Dutton opposed in cabinet.

That doesn't matter. What matters is that the coalition put together a deal. I remember the member for Burt and others saying that it couldn't be done and that no-one would ever agree to it. We've now got a GST deal which does rectify the inequalities in the GST distribution and treats WA fairly. The Prime Minister will go to Western Australia next week and he'll look down the barrel of the camera and say, 'We're not going to touch the WA GST deal.' He'll look straight down that camera, the same way he did when he said, 'We won't touch the stage 3 tax cuts,' and I don't think the people of Western Australia are going to believe him, quite frankly. I don't think they're going to be able to say, 'Yes, Prime Minister.'

When you think about the rationale that we've heard in here about taking from the rich and giving to the poor and about taking from a rich state and giving to the poorer states, the same rationale could be applied to the GST deal. Quite frankly, I'm concerned for Western Australia and our future finances. We do pretty well with our iron ore industry, but I don't trust the Prime Minister not to take away our GST.

I'm pleased to rise to join my colleagues in supporting Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 offer cost-of-living relief and tax reform. As the Prime Minister has said, Labor has been very concerned about the cost-of-living impact on families, individuals and Australians around the country. Those on this side of the House have been critically concerned with this, none more so than myself, representing, as I do, a community in the outer west of Melbourne where most people have a mortgage. Watching the interest rate rises and having an understanding of the impact of those and what this means for many in my community, I have been incredibly concerned.

I've been very proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government. All the members of our cabinet, all the members of the executive and all the members of the backbench are critically concerned about these things and have been working together collaboratively across 20 months of government to find ways to put supports in place for people. It began in that December after we were first elected, when caucus members saw what was going to happen and came back to Canberra to fix it by bringing in legislation to put downward pressure on energy prices. From that point, the Australian public was in good hands, because we had a cabinet whose members were going to work together to find ways to support Australians.

We saw it again in health. We saw it with cheaper medicine, and I know what that means on the ground for my community. I know what that means in my house. It means that, when you are on a long-term medications and you go to the chemist, you're getting longer scripts, there are more scripts on the PBS and all medicines are cheaper than they were. This is critical, and it has made a real difference on the ground. Of course, there is the tripling of the bulk-billing incentives, which is turning around the bulk-billing rates across the country, and those bulk-billing rates are reversing in the electorate of Lalor.

We introduced an increase to the rental subsidy. We did the childcare support package. This government has been focused on reducing the pressure on families across the country. Today, the legislation before us is the introduction of Labor's tax cuts cost-of-living relief. This is a critical piece of legislation, because it will deliver a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer, first and foremost. It's hard to use that language of a tax cut, for me, because it isn't the tax cut; it's actually the increase in your pay packet because less tax has been taken. It will give families and everyone in my electorate more disposable income at a time when they really need it. Importantly, it doesn't have an inflationary impact. This, of course, is critical, because we're still fighting inflation.

In Lalor, there are 95,000 taxpayers who will be getting a tax cut from 1 July under this package that is being introduced, as the Prime Minister said, because it is the right decision made at the right time in response to cost-of-living pressures. Eighty-eight per cent of the taxpayers in Lalor will be better off under Labor's stage 3 tax system, so 84,000 taxpayers will be better off. We've heard speaker after speaker go through what that means. We heard the member for O'Connor talking about teachers, police officers and rental properties. I tell you what I can tell teachers and police officers in my electorate: from 1 July, under this government, you will have more in your pockets because of these tax cuts than you would have had under the Liberal plan. It's not just teachers, and it's not just police officers. It's the nurses, aged-care workers, childcare workers, those who work in transport and logistics, forklift drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, people working in retail, people working in building and construction and people working in the public sector. This will have a positive impact on the gamut of people across my electorate.

As I said here in another opportunity last week, I know that, on 1 July, I can look the people of my community in the eye. Like thousands of other Australians who, under the Morrison tax cuts, would have received a smaller tax cut, I am pleased that this decision means that families, young people and women in my community will get more money in their pockets rather than in mine. I can't be blunter than that. I know that that's a sentiment shared across the country, because that's what we're hearing. The feedback coming back to me from families and people I know outside my electorate—people who earn $200,000 plus—is that they are happy that this is happening. There's no denying that that is real.

To those opposite, I say it would be nice, as the Treasurer said today, if you were enthusiastically supporting this legislation. That's probably too much to hope for. I'm pleased that the member for O'Connor, at least, has expressed quite clearly that he's pleased. The speech wasn't overwhelmingly positive, but he's pleased to support this, because he knows the difference it will make to people in his electorate who earn $40,000 a year. It means something where they were going to get nothing. Those opposite may not be enthusiastic, but I welcome them reluctantly supporting the tax cuts and reluctantly supporting this.

There's been a lot of talk in here this evening about what we've spoken about in this place across 20 months. I tell you what we've talked a lot about: the cost of living. On this side, we've talked a lot about the things that we've been doing to address cost of living and assist people in that while, as a government and as a country, we fight inflation. That's what we've heard a lot about. Do you know what else we've heard a lot about? We've had a lot of questions from the other side about energy bills across 20 months. Unfortunately, in December, they all came in and voted against things that were designed to put downward pressure on energy bills, so any question they ask on energy bills completely loses credibility and validity, as far as I'm concerned. But I note that, in the last two weeks since the Prime Minister stood up at the National Press Club and explained his and our decision and our processes to get to this place, there's been a complete lack of interest from that side of the chamber on the impacts of the cost of living on residents around this country. It is glaring that it is suddenly not of interest to those opposite.

One of the things I'm concerned about with that is that people might think that the cost-of-living pressures have gone away, and of course they haven't. And, as the Prime Minister has also said, this legislation brings some relief. It brings some reform around bracket creep, some reform around taxation to support people, but it's not the job finished. The inflationary pressures are still there—moderating but still there. People are still doing it tough.

I'm really proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government. I'm really proud to work with the members of the government on this side who are so concerned about these pressures. I'm really proud to support a cabinet who are prepared to work together to find ways to support Australians in communities like mine and in communities across this country. I'm really proud that, as a government, we've demonstrated that we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can deal with an inflationary crisis and care for people and, more importantly, meet our commitment to not leave people behind.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. There has been much talk and spin about the fact that Labor have tweaked the coalition stage 3 tax cuts in a manner that attempts to cement the narrative that they are the party of the battler, of the low-income worker. That's just a load of rubbish. This continuing rhetoric and attempt to project themselves as the Robin Hood party, where they take from the rich and give to the poor, is not washing with Australian people, because they aren't fools.

Let us look at the facts—a new concept, I know! Firstly, these are proposed stage 3 tax cuts. This means there were two stages before this one. I know this because it was the coalition who legislated all three stages. It was our idea, our policy, because we are, and always have been, the party that believes in and delivers lower taxes to all workers. We're also the party that believes in simplifying the tax system, not making it more complicated. The original legislation not only allowed hardworking Australians to keep more of what they earned—a term first coined by the coalition, which I notice Labor have now picked up on and are using with gusto and enthusiasm. They do say that, when you are copied, that is the greatest form of flattery.

I digress. The coalition's legislated tax cuts eliminated entirely the 37c in the dollar tax bracket and reduced the 32½ per cent bracket to 30 per cent. To assist low- and middle-income workers, from July 2020 we lifted the 19c bracket from $37,000 to $45,000. These measures meant that every worker earning up to $200,000 would not pay more than 30c in tax on any dollar they earnt. What a wonderful incentive for people who have aspirations to work hard, take risks and/or upskill themselves. Labor have re-complicated the tax system by reintroducing the 37c bracket for those who earn more than $135,000—in doing so, punishing those with these aspirations. They have also legislated that those earning $190,000 or more will pay 45c in tax on every dollar they earn over that figure.

The coalition understand that a percentage of a bigger number is a larger amount in real dollar terms, and we wanted to ensure low- and middle-income workers on under $120,000 were looked after as well as those on higher incomes. This was achieved in two ways. First, stages 1 and 2 of these tax cuts implemented the tax cuts for those on these lower incomes back in 2018-19 and in 2020-21, when we were in government. Stage 3, where the tax cuts came in for those on higher incomes, were due to commence this July. This is further evidence that the coalition is the party of all workers, including those on lower incomes. Second, the LMITO, or the low- and middle-income tax offset, was introduced for those on an income of less than $120,000. I can testify firsthand, from speaking to people on these lower incomes, to the real difference this made in their lives. Getting their tax done and receiving a windfall of up to an extra $1,500 in their tax refund was, for some, life-changing.

Debate interrupted.

Australia is at a critical moment in its history. After enjoying almost 70 years of relative peace, prosperity and strategic order, we are now entering a period of tension, hardship and strategic disorder. Authoritarian powers are on the move. China and Russia deepened their strategic cooperation in February 2022 with their 'no limits' partnership. Since that time, Russia has drawn the sword against Ukraine, invading sovereign territory and killing thousands of people. China has flexed its muscles in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, with multiple provocations. Terrorism is back. Hamas attacked and murdered more than a thousand Israelis on 7 October, and Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, out of Yemen, are firing missiles at drones and international shipping in the Red Sea, forcing up the cost of freight and compromising around12 per cent of global trade.

Despite all our national advantages in geography and resources, the liberty of distance and abundance, we are a country that is dependent upon the security of the seas for our importation of goods, especially liquid fuels, and for our exports that underwrite our prosperity. We are a trading nation and vulnerable to this emerging strategic disorder. It would not take much to severely damage our prosperity, either through regional conflict or an adversary conducting supply chain warfare against our country. Now, more than ever, is the time to act to secure our future, which is why the Albanese government's weakness in defence is so inexcusable.

The times demand strong leadership. Instead, we get weak leadership from the Prime Minister and his part-time defence minister. There is much to do, and this Labor government is failing to do it. Since April last year, we've known that the Albanese government is not serious about defence. The Defence Strategic Review in April last year revealed that there is no new money for defence. In fact, with inflation, the budget has gone backwards in real terms. This means they are making cuts to the ADF across the board—to Army, Navy and Air Force. Army has had its infantry fighting vehicles order slashed from 450 to 129. It's shrinking from three fighting brigades to one. Under the Albanese government, the Army is weaker and our ability to prevail in land combat is diminished. That's the consequence of weak leadership.

Our budget with the AUKUS commitment must grow; otherwise, we sacrifice other important capabilities and our readiness to fight. Sustainment budgets will be cannibalised, and the historical record reflects this, as we saw when we operated two aircraft carriers in the Royal Australian Navy.

This is fundamentally a question of leadership for the defence minister. We know that he lost at the ERC last year to Senator Penny Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He needs to secure more money for the defence budget. The speed of the boss is the speed of the team, and the Minister for Defence agreed with this sentiment in October 2022, when he said that he takes responsibility for defence—that the buck stops with him. But under this minister we see a host of failings, and estimates has revealed that today—a deferral of tough decisions.

It was five months ago that the minister received the surface fleet review, and we are still waiting for his decision on it. It's causing massive uncertainty for defence industry and in South Australia.

We are yet to see a defence strategy, the most important thing you must have in defending the nation. You must know what the threat is and you must have a plan to defeat it. It shapes everything, particularly in the budget, and in a time of scarcity we need a strategy first and foremost. We won't see this until midyear at the earliest, only after the big decisions are taken on capabilities, platforms and equipment.

The paperwork piling up on the minister's desk has resulted in a 37-year delay on our most significant defence programs. The department is dysfunctional, with senior officials airing their grievances against the minister through the Australian Financial Review.

The Labor government haven't deployed a naval vessel to the Red Sea, a weak decision when you consider the US, the UK, France, Italy and other nations are stepping up. The Albanese government won't send otherwise serviceable Taipan helicopters to Ukraine even after our friends have asked for them, preferring to bury them along with our reputation as a tough-minded people who look after our mates. This government is weak in defence, and that has caused a recruiting and retention crisis. We are not getting enough people joining and we are losing too many. I am worried for Australia, as are all those on this side of the House. The Minister for Defence is on notice: show some strength, secure money for the ADF, make the hard decisions. If you can't by the May budget, resign and make way for someone who can. We can't afford to be weak any longer.

I rise to acknowledge the great work and the leadership of Queensland's African community. Just a few weekends ago, Queenslanders were shocked by the murder of the much-loved grandmother Vyleen White at the Redbank Plains shopping centre, just down the Ipswich motorway from my electorate of Moreton. This tragedy has shocked everyone and, unfortunately, has led to some rising tensions in my local community and throughout Queensland, as well as reports of racist attacks. My office has received some calls that were very, very racist in their tone. However, the leadership of the African Communities Council of Queensland; its president, Beny Bol OAM; and members of Mrs White's family, despite their grief, recognised the need to address the growing disharmony in our community.

Vyleen's daughter, Cindy Micallef, worked with Beny Bol. Cindy and Beny came together as a unified force, speaking to media and inviting locals to attend an open community meeting because, in Beny's words, 'The best way we can honour her legacy is for us to preach peace, unity and accountability, and to make sure people who do wrong things are held accountable individually.' Beny said it was important to send a message out that hate has no place here—noble words.

I have spoken before in this House about the Queensland African Communities Council and Beny Bol OAM. Beny has a long history of working with young people and is committed to making sure that African youth are not overrepresented in our criminal justice system. Beny has spent more than 10 years working with young people and was awarded an OAM for his service to youth. Beny believes that many community services and state government programs are not designed or run to meet the needs of younger community members. So, rather than wait for something to come along, the Queensland African Communities Council decided to be proactive and designed a youth early intervention strategy.

The African Village at Moorooka—the suburb I live in, in my electorate—and other sites at Redbank Plains and at Geebung are all part of the strategy. These centres are modelled on the concept of 'it takes a village to raise a child' approach. At each site or each village, African youth mentors organise locally designed and structured activities to support individual young people, families and schools, to make sure those at risk of becoming disengaged at school are supported at an early stage. Just as an aside, I want to thank my niece, Trish, for donating furniture to these centres. It is important to recognise the crucial work that has been done by our African community leaders because it specifically targets young adults who are disengaged from school or who have already spent some time in youth detention. They help them reconnect with their family, their culture and their community, and provide them with the skills to reconnect with our community in a positive way.

But there is other important work we should recognise about the African leadership in Queensland. The African diaspora know about division. In fact, many of their families are here because of division—because their communities disintegrated back in their country of origin. They know what division brings and are quick to present a unified front on any issue that could possibly divide our community. They know because they fled from countries where division forced them to seek refuge elsewhere. They know the destruction, the despair and the tragedy that divisive behaviour can fuel. Some politicians should sit at their feet and learn these lessons.

African leaders like Beny Bol understand and recognise the threats to social cohesion and how important it is that, in times of conflict, crisis and tragedy, our purpose should be to ensure that our people come together to make sure that they don't divide and inflame. Beny and his peers witnessed the results of too little trust and of not seeking common ground. Too little trust undermines the foundation of our democracy. Cheap, short-term political points can actually be long-term corrosive. We know that there are politicians and community leaders fuelling division right now over conflicts that are occurring overseas. They are using these tragedies to promote division in our community because it serves no other purpose than to progress their own political agendas.

As politicians and representatives, we should lead by example. We need to recognise that sometimes what's at stake is something that is far greater than our own selfish political needs. All of us, including politicians in this House, should look at the actions of Beny Bol, Cindy Micallef and Vyleen White's family and take a leaf out of their book as an example of how to show leadership and unite a community that is hurting and grieving. We all want justice and harmony.

Many years ago, my grandmother, Troy—who'd had my mother, Marie, and my uncle John—had another child. He was stillborn, and they named him Tony. But, because he was stillborn, he was buried in an unmarked plot in a grave at Adelong. That is what the view was then. Three hundred women a day have a miscarriage. But for them it is their child; it is their baby. That's 110,000 a year. This is an issue which is not getting the attention it should. Just recently we had the case in Queensland where a lady at 12 weeks went to the hospital and was holding her 12-week-old child in a biohazard bag in the waiting room for hours. There isn't a focus on the emotional trauma that this issue causes. At the time, the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, noted that she had also had a miscarriage and the trauma it caused her. We have to do something further on this.

I want to talk about and acknowledge Claire Brett from my electorate. Claire had suffered multiple miscarriages and experienced severe anxiety with her pregnancy after the loss. Claire organised a function the other day. It sold out in seven minutes—bang! Completely sold the room—which goes to show you that even in New England, in a small city such as Armidale, there is a focus on this issue. I keep pretty sombre company, but at that function we had so many women, especially younger women who had experienced this. There was a focus on it. As part of the fundraising, we had a six-foot-three transvestite. Usually I'm not found in their company, but on this day I made an exception. A really good night was had by all to raise money for this.

I want to encourage as many areas as possible to be part of this group. It is called Lighting the Way. I want to encourage as many areas, groups and suburbs as possible to reach out to their constituents and have a similar organisation, because I think you will be amazed at the unrecognised hurt that is there. The people I was talking to were saying: 'We recognise that date just like any other birthday. We recognise that event as we do for other children. We felt that baby inside us. We had a relationship with that person, and that person died.' That is exactly how they see it. We have to become vastly more civilised than we were in my grandmother's time, where they were just taken to the graveyard, buried in an unmarked plot and, forevermore, you would be wandering around trying to work out where this child—which would be my uncle—is. They are worth more than a plaque.

As part of what we're doing in a bipartisan way, we want to make sure that, for all the people at the inaugural fundraiser held in Armidale, it is just that: the inaugural fundraiser for many other fundraising activities that will follow. Between those of us on either side of this chamber, we will work with Claire Brett of Kentucky and all the other women who say that this is something that this parliament can do which is positive, which is effective and which would take us and our nation to a higher place.

Lighting the Way provides counselling and support services for women who have experienced miscarriage, so we don't have to have these issues where people go through a miscarriage and are basically just told, 'Oh well'—obviously you, Madam Deputy Speaker Chesters, know vastly more about this than I do. For guys out there like me: what you have to go through if you go through a birth post birth is what you have to go through if you go through a miscarriage post miscarriage. You have to have the same checks and the same issues. For so many people, it's the same as having a baby.

Congratulations, Claire. I commend the work that you do to the House and to the nation.

I congratulate two women who live in my electorate on their well-deserved Australia Day honours: Professor Emerita Cynthia Mitchell, on her Officer of the Order of Australia award for distinguished service to the environment as an innovator, leader and academic through her work on water resource sustainability; and the Reverend Canon Professor Dorothy Lee, on her Member of the Order of Australia award for significant service to the Anglican Church of Australia.

While both women are recognised as global leaders in their fields, they're so humble that neither woman initially believed that they were in fact recipients of the Australia Day honour. Cynthia thought the email, despite its fancy government crest, was a scam. She was about to delete the email, but, after checking the sender's address, realised that it was legitimate. Dorothy, meanwhile, said she had to read the email she was sent three times before it sank in. Both women have also made their mark in traditionally male dominated environments—Cynthia in the world of engineering, and Dorothy in the world of theology and the church.

As a teenager, Cynthia loved maths and chemistry. She also loved the natural environment and bushwalking. After completing her Bachelor of Chemical Engineering, she began working in the emerging field of biotechnology. However, it wasn't long before she realised she wanted to work in an area that more closely aligned with her values. After spending a year camping her way around Australia and travelling 40,000 kilometres, it was time to find a job. Fortuitously, the field of environmental engineering had emerged. Cynthia was soon tapped to lead the new environmental engineering programs at the Queensland University of Technology, the University of Queensland and the University of Sydney. She was able to combine her passion for the environment with her knowledge of biotech. And so her research career took off in the field of sustainable sanitation and water management.

In 2001 Cynthia was looking for opportunities to make a practical difference, so she joined the new Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney. For the next two decades Cynthia was instrumental in its emergence as a world-class research institute. The institute now numbers 150 people, a mark of its ongoing success.

Cynthia worked alongside industry and governments across Australia, Asia and the Pacific to improve ecological, economic and social outcomes of urban infrastructure. Along the way she collected numerous accolades: a fellow of the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, a fellow of Engineers Australia and a fellow of the Institute of Company Directors. Cynthia was honoured in 2015 as one of the Australian Financial Review's 100 Women of Influence, and, in 2018, was recognised by the industry as a Legend of Water. But her work is not done. Determined to leave a proud legacy, in 2021 Cynthia started her first business, The Good Ancestor, which helps directors, leaders and their teams develop more effective ways to tackle the most complex challenges we face—including, of course, climate change.

Dorothy Lee, meanwhile, was born in Scotland into a very conservative religious family—one where women were seen and not heard, and certainly not encouraged to have a career. However, Dorothy didn't let that stop her. Her love for the ancient world was sparked by a visit to Pompeii as a youngster. She was immediately transfixed. She went on to study English and the classic languages, Latin and Ancient Greek, as part of her Bachelor of Arts. While she initially wanted to be an archaeologist, she was soon drawn to study theology. She completed a Bachelor of Divinity and then a PhD. In an act of rebellion, given her conservative background, Dorothy joined the church's ministry where she was eventually ordained an Anglican priest.

Dorothy was determined to be a force for inclusion in the academic world and in society and, more specifically, to ensure a Christian faith that was affirming of women. A leading New Testament scholar with a particular interest in the gospels, Dorothy has many years of experience in lecturing in the area of feminist theology and women's ministry in the New Testament. She also has numerous publications to her name, with her best-known work being The Ministry of Women in the New Testament. In October 2012, Dorothy was elected one of the 10 foundation professors of the University of Divinity, Australia's first specialist university. She is also a Canon Emerita of St Paul's Cathedral Melbourne and a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities.

Congratulations to both Cynthia and Dorothy on their well-deserved honours and to the people around them who have contributed to their success.

I want to talk about the integrity of the Labor Party and broken promises. In May this year, it will be two years since the election when the Albanese government came to power. At the time, Prime Minister Albanese looked people in the eye and knowingly and repeatedly didn't tell them the truth. He gave them false information, because he promised Australians that they could trust him to keep his promise. 'My word is my bond,' is what he said. The Albanese government have promised more than a hundred times since the election that they would deliver issues like the stage 3 income tax cuts cost-of-living relief to families in full—not changed, in full. It's a pattern from Prime Minister Albanese. Stage 3 income tax cuts, electricity prices lowered by $275, no changes to super, lower mortgages, and the front page of the paper on election day—in Queensland, at least—said, 'Life would be easier under me.'

Life isn't easier under this Prime Minister and this government. Mortgages are not lower. They've actually increased 12 times. Electricity bills were not lowered by $275; they have also increased significantly. Superannuation has been changed, and stage 3 tax cuts are clearly being revised. The explanatory memorandum of the Treasury laws amendment bill that I spoke on this week says 'current law' and 'new law'. Current law: $45,000 to $200,000, 30 per cent tax; new law: $135,000 to $190,000, 37 per cent. That's a seven per cent increase. And incomes of $190, 000 are now taxed at 45 per cent. One of my constituents is about to cop a 15 per cent increase in bracket creep because of the Albanese Labor government breaking their election commitment.

It's not just me saying this. I'm getting emails from constituents. This is from Glenn Cullen in my electorate. This is what he said—

An honourable member interjecting—

We actually have real constituents, if you want to interject. This is a constituent who lives in Newport. Look him up on Facebook; his name is Glenn Cullen. He says:

Prime Minister I am positive you don't deserve this title, as you are weak and not observant of the real world, my name is Glenn Cullen a resident of Newport QLD and a businessman that employs people. Your broken promises are becoming overwhelming, and I do not believe your party has any credibility or integrity, you are stealing from the Australian people. Your tax alternative policy will benefit you by 28 billion. The strikes at the wharf will keep coming and with Wong giving money of the Australian people to the UNRWA is a joke as they were shown to support terrorism and your Voice Referendum which was a total failure as you are surely aware. It's time to call an early election so we can get back on with Australia being not a weak woke country as we are becoming under your party.

The Prime Minister's broken promises mean that delivering the stage 3 tax cuts as they're legislated here in the law of the land today, on 14 February 2024, will not be possible. The coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with stage 3 tax reforms. We remain committed to fighting bracket creep and enshrining aspiration, because strong leaders keep their promises. They don't say one thing to the Australian people and then do the complete opposite. When it comes to bracket creep, that is based on your income. In a nutshell, a lot of people in my electorate will be impacted. I've got 12,300 people who earn between $91,000 and $135,000 who will be impacted by bracket creep over the next five years, and these changes will be anywhere from seven to 15 per cent in bracket creep.

Ian from Redcliffe is a concreter. He earns $105,800 but, as he progresses over the next few years, he will face the threat of bracket creep and move into the 37 per cent bracket. Louise from Newport, who is a single mother and a psychologist, earns around $189,000. With Labor's new proposed tax brackets, Louise will lose $2,976 in comparison to what is currently legislated. She cannot work overtime or accept a bonus without jumping up into an even higher tax bracket of 45 per cent and having her income in the higher bracket taxed 15 per cent higher—another $1,500—by the Albanese Labor government. More residents fall into bracket creep. We will take a better package to the next election. Whilst we are voting for the changes that they're making for the low-income earners, from 19c to 16c, this government has clearly broken an election commitment.

Tonight I rise to talk on two topics that I know are important to my community. Like so many people in my community, I have been devastated to hear Israel say in recent days that it has plans for a ground offensive in Rafah. This offensive will have, and is already having, devastating consequences. There are more than a million civilians sheltering in and around Rafah—civilians who have been displaced by fighting elsewhere and have moved to this area, often under Israeli direction. These civilians deserve to be safe. I share the horror of so many in my community at the destruction and death that have been occurring in Gaza under Israel's military action. These people in my community want to see international law upheld and civilians protected, and they realise that any push into Rafah only puts more innocent lives at risk.

Australia expects Israel to act in accordance with the ICJ ruling, including to enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance. Australia has voted for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. It is critical and urgent that we get a ceasefire. Of course, this cannot be a one-sided ceasefire. It will also require Hamas to cease its attacks and to release the Israeli hostages it still holds. Australia will continue to advocate for a pathway out of this conflict and for ongoing peace and security. It is part of our shared humanity to want innocent lives to be protected—all innocent lives. There have been too many innocent civilians killed already.

Tonight I want to talk about climate change, because ever since I was elected to this place people in my community have continued to be very clear with me that they support action that listens to the science, is driven by the science and secures the future of all of us. Our government has just recently announced our new vehicle efficiency standards. More efficient vehicles will mean savings on both maintenance and fuel costs for people in my community and communities right around Australia.

I know that some of the Chicken Littles on the other side have predictably taken this announcement as a chance to run around and suggest that the sky is falling in. But it is not all of them who are Chicken Littles. Some, in fact, have been supporters of this policy for a long time. In 2017, the member for Bradfield and his then ministerial colleague Josh Frydenberg were big advocates for vehicle efficiency standards. They said:

… European versions of the top selling … Mazda 3 and Mazda CX5—

are—

all more efficient than the models sold in Australia …

What a revelation! They said:

If Australia had fuel efficiency standards in line with comparable nations, estimates of the fuel saving per passenger vehicle could be above $500 per year, or nearly $28 billion in total by 2040.

I am very glad that they did their homework. They also said:

Consumers could also benefit from accessing better vehicles as manufacturers are currently holding back some of their latest fuel efficient stock from Australia.

With better vehicles, fuel savings and more efficient car models, this is a win-win-win if I've ever seen one. I'm so pleased that those opposite saw it earlier, but I am very disappointed, including for consumers in my community and around this country, that those opposite didn't act earlier on their conviction. If the member for Bradfield and Josh Frydenberg had only had the courage to deliver fuel efficiency standards back then, when they sat on the government benches, consumers across this country could have been saving for years.

Of course, just two years after those statements, Liberals and Nationals across the aisle were singing from a new song sheet called 'ending the weekend', and we have heard some of those refrains coming back in the past fortnight. Australians are too smart to fall for this scare campaign. It couldn't be further from the truth. Those opposite continue to play politics with climate change. They continue to do this country a disservice, putting their own political interests—we saw this again in Nemesis the other week—ahead of the outcomes that this country needs, and in this case ahead of savings for consumers that will come from vehicle fuel efficiency standards that should have been in place on their watch.

When it comes to all these important policies and all these important decisions, when it comes to genuine action on climate change, it takes a Labor government. This Labor government is doing the work to secure a better future for my community and people across Australia.

For some, it made the difference from being evicted from the property they rent or being evicted because they couldn't pay their mortgage. Sadly, one of the first things this Labor government did when assuming office after the election was not continue the real cost-of-living initiative for those on low and middle incomes. I was contacted by people in this cohort, in dismay, asking why it had not been continued. My response was simply, 'Good question.' I encourage the government to reinstate this tax offset to give real, meaningful help at this most difficult time.

How do we know that Australians are actually going to be worse off under this new legislation? It's simple: the numbers don't lie. Treasury have estimated that the extra tax the government will receive as a result of their proposed changes is $28 billion over the next decade. How can Australians keep more of what they earn when the government collects more tax? It just doesn't make any mathematical sense. Let's look at a real example. A worker on $60,000 in 2017 paid $10,947 in tax. After the coalition's tax cuts and the low- and middle-income tax offsets in 2022, they paid $8,367 in tax. They were $2,580 per annum better off. Under this new Labor legislation, they will be paying $8,688 in tax, which means they are $321 worse off. As I say, the numbers don't lie; they actually expose the spin.

Labor are saying, 'Why would the coalition support these tax cuts if people are worse off?' I will be supporting them because, since they have not continued the low- and middle-income tax offset, this worker on $60,000 is now paying $9,867 in tax, and $8,688 is better than that. It's still not as good as when they were under the coalition government, when they only paid $8,367. That's why we are speaking out on behalf of these workers who will be earning less take-home pay under this government. The coalition will always go in to bat for all workers, regardless of what they earn.

We're only talking about gross and net wages here, or before-tax and after-tax wages. The real wages measure is the only true measure. This tells us what people actually get for their money. Under these proposed changes and the discontinuation of the low- and middle-income offset, as we have already established, people will be worse off in take-home pay terms. This would be fine if the cost of living were going down, but we see the exact opposite. We see that inflation is at 5.4 per cent, electricity is up by 20 per cent, food is up by nine per cent, insurance is up a whopping 22 per cent, and interest rates have risen an incredible 12 times under this government, meaning someone with a mortgage of $500,000 is paying just under $350 more per week in repayments than when the coalition was in government. This means that over the past 18 months real net disposable income, or what you have left after you've paid tax and your bills, has dropped by a massive 8.6 per cent. For an average income earner that's just under $8,000 that they are worse off. This is confirmed by the correspondence I receive in my office each day and when I am out and about talking to people. Cafe owners are telling me business is slowing and people who would buy three coffees a week are now buying two. Those who had coffee and cake now have just coffee. Hairdressers tell me many who used to have their hair done every six weeks are now having it done every eight weeks. These are real signs of the struggle people are enduring.

To make matters even worse, we see that Labor are investigating ways to implement other policies that will inflict even more pain on Australians, especially those on lower incomes. These are policies like the vehicle efficiency standards, which is to try to force people into purchasing an EV. This will add greater costs for those who choose or simply have to purchase a petrol or diesel vehicle because they can't afford the higher initial outlay incurred when purchasing an electric car. In New Zealand, when this policy was implemented, it drove up the cost of a car by around $7,000 New Zealand dollars. For many in my community of Longman, this is simply unaffordable. That's not to mention the impact on the motor vehicle industry and car dealers, who are still feeling the hangover from the COVID pandemic, where supply was a massive issue.

There has been research and polling done on policies like capital gains tax on the family home and changes to negative gearing, franking credits and family trusts all to raise money to fund policies like the $450 million failed Voice referendum, the $100 million for the new transmission lines needed for their energy policy and all the other crazy items on their agenda. Basically it's anything but the thing which matters most to most Australians—cost-of-living relief. Why wouldn't the government be delivering real cost-of-living relief? Political pointscoring, of course. They are simply obsessed with trying to deliver a budget surplus for no other reason than to try to hoodwink the Australian people into thinking that they are better managers of the economy. They will do this at the expense of the very people they say they are trying to help—low- and middle-income workers.

The coalition always aimed for a surplus but never at the expense of the Australian people. The time of the COVID pandemic is a prime example. We were on track to deliver a surplus. It was put on hold, and rightly so, to ensure costly but necessary measures could be put in place to ensure we minimised the economic pain during the pandemic for the people we were elected to serve. A touch of irony is that these COVID measures will in part help deliver the surplus Labor are claiming from increased tax receipts, along with the windfall from the mining and resources sector, including coal, which, again ironically, Labor so often berates and vilifies.

So I say to this government: forget the spin, smoke and mirrors, put the political pointscoring aside, reinstate the low and middle income tax offset in full, get rid of the fuel excise and deliver to the Australian people real cost-of-living relief, because they deserve it.

Today I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. The story here is that Australians put their trust in the Prime Minister nearly two years ago. They trusted his word that electricity would be cheaper. They trusted his word that he would change our country for the better. They trusted his word that he would deliver cheaper mortgages, medicines and electric vehicles. They trusted him when he said, 'My word is my bond.' The Prime Minister looked Australians in the eye and repeatedly misled them. As each day passed, he and the Treasurer plotted and plotted to break their word. The Prime Minister and Treasurer said they hadn't changed their position on the stage 3 tax cuts despite asking Treasury to look at other options last December. They made a commitment more than 100 times to the Australian people.

Australians can see through the Prime Minister's misleading words now. They won't be deceived. They can see the deception, the magician's trick, that he is trying to perform, because, despite promises for a better future, Australians currently find themselves grappling with the highest interest rates since 2011 and rising costs of food, electricity, gas, mortgages and rents. Families' disposable incomes are going down, which is putting pressure on household budgets. It means that families are having to make choices between fuel and food, between school fees, private health cover and recreational activities—maybe paying for sporting uniforms or paying for registration fees for their kids to play sport.

This cost-of-living crisis has consequences for the Australian people, and the Albanese government has been distracted. Last year it spent the whole year distracted by the Voice referendum, a very divisive exercise by the Prime Minister which cost $450 million and only served to divide the nation and deliver a resounding no to his plan. Meanwhile, Australians are now thousands of dollars worse off as a result of this government's economic mismanagement. While Labor claims their changes to the stage 3 tax cut legislation will be 'broadly revenue neutral', it's going to cost an extra $1.3 billion over the next four years and $28 billion over the next decade. An average income earner is only going to receive just over $15 a week more under Labor's tax cuts, hardly enough for the cheapest item on the menu in a cafe in Marrickville or a restaurant in Mandurah, where I live. This is less than one per cent of their annual wage and returns just 10c for every dollar that they have lost to cost-of-living pressures during Labor's first 18 months in office.

Before the election the Prime Minister promised a $275 reduction in power bills, no changes to superannuation taxes, an increase in real wages, no changes to franking credits, cheaper mortgages and no changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. The Prime Minister has broken all of these promises, so what's next? Is negative gearing next on the government's hit list? The Prime Minister and the Treasurer can't give a straight answer when they're asked to rule out their promise on negative gearing. The Treasurer was asked on 29 January about the plan to make changes to negative gearing and he said, 'Labor wasn't considering it.' That's what they said 100 times about the stage 3 tax cuts. The finance minister was asked the same question on the Today show and said, 'We have no plans to do that.' That's what they said about the stage 3 tax cuts. The truth here is that the Australian people can't trust a word from this Prime Minister or his economic team.

The opposition won't break its promises. We won't desert Australians who've been promised something. We're committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes, which is why we're not standing in the way of this legislation. We acknowledge that there are tax cuts in this legislation, and we want to see the Australian people benefit from those, but we're committed to aspiration. We can promise Australians that we'll go to the next election with an aspirational tax reform package that is in keeping with our commitment to giving Australians more of their own money back. It will be a distinct choice at the next election. It will be a choice between aspiration on the one hand and redistribution on the other. Australians can trust our word.

Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at 20:1 4

It was wonderful to be in the community on Australia Day, 26 January, this year to celebrate with the community. I started the day at the Monbulk Rotary and then went to the Wandin Rotary breakfast. Thank you to them for a wonderful celebration but also the amazing work that Rotary does in our community, giving back to help those that need it. Congratulations to my good friend John Hasan, who was awarded the Paul Harris Fellow award at the Wandin Rotary, their highest award. It was also amazing to see Arnold Dix at Monbulk. Some people would remember Arnold; he was the man that helped save 41 miners in India late last year. It was great to see him there. I couldn't stay for his speech, but I have had the opportunity to hear him speak about the sacrifices that he made to save those miners in India, so it was wonderful to see Arnold recognised. We're proud that he's from Monbulk—from our community.

After that, it was off to the Yarra Ranges Council facilities for their Australia Day citizenship ceremony, where we got to welcome 60 new citizens to our country. Citizenship ceremonies are always wonderful events but particularly on Australia Day, when you see the joy, and the passion and the pride that these new citizens have for our country, for joining the great Australian dream. But there's also the acknowledgement and recognition of their culture that they have brought with them to our country, and that was on show with the wonderful dress that was worn on the day.

It's very important that we recognise the many citizens that do so much in our community. At the Yarra Ranges community awards I was proud to present the Ian De La Rue Award to Randall Bourchier, and the Mayor's Lifetime Achievement Award to Alan Somers, two great people that I've got to know over many years, who have given so much to our community. I also want to congratulate the Millgrove Residents Action Group for winning the Community Group of the Year Award. It was very well deserved. To Lachlan Hudak from Lilydale Heights and Sophie Morris from Mount Lilydale: congratulations on being the young environmentalists of the year. Congratulations also to Chris McAleer, Jean Steel and Bruce Argyle for their certificates of recognition.

It was wonderful to be there to see my good friend Sharyn Manning recognised as the 2024 Yarra Ranges Council Citizen of the Year. She's a person I've known for many years. We were on the Lilydale Township Action Group together.

I want to thank Wandin Rotary, the Wandin football club and the Wandin Cricket club for their family fun day and also acknowledge the work of Bendigo Bank, the community bank that donated $10,000 to each of the Coldstream, Gruyere, Wandin and Seville CFAs—community groups and CFAs that need to be supported more than ever.

It was a wonderful day, celebrating everything that is great about this country and everything that is great about our community—coming together, supporting each other and recognising this wonderful country.

I want to recognise the terrific citizenship ceremony brought together by Blacktown City Council on Australia Day. It's always an honour to attend these ceremonies and be part of the personal chapters in people's lives as they take that huge step towards citizenship. That day, as well, is used as a backdrop to recognise champions who make a difference in our community.

I want to make special mention of Blacktown Citizen of the Year Rachael Hanlon for her tireless—genuinely tireless—efforts through the Blacktown City Lions Club. I've known Rachael for years and I know how hard she works. For example, she works to support fundraising drives to help the Blacktown and Mount Druitt Hospital, gets involved in Indigenous reading collection drives and also, importantly, takes leadership roles in local initiatives to tackle domestic violence. In her 10-year campaign, Rachael has helped raise over $400,000 and delivered $500,000 worth of food donations to support people in need in our area. I want to extend my deep thanks and congratulations to her not just for winning the award but for what she's done to make a difference in people's lives.

Recognised on the day as well was Ebony O'Connor, who was awarded the city's Young Citizen of the Year award for outstanding achievement and dedication to youth initiatives through the Blacktown Youth Advisory Committee. I acknowledge the Environmental Citizen of the Year, Ariana Goanta. Ariana was recognised for her contributions in promoting recycling and teaching others how to look after wildlife. And congrats to the Rotary Club of Blacktown City, who received the Community Event of the Year award for their successful seniors Christmas lunch.

On Australia Day there were a number of Chifley people honoured with the Order of Australia. Deep congrats to Dr Amanda White OAM, who has rightly earned that abbreviation at the end of her name, for her remarkable service in the tertiary education sector, and to Mr Francis Avis OAM for his outstanding work in broadcast media. I also recognise Alexa Player, a young girl from the Blacktown District Girl Guides, who has received the Queen's Guide Gold Endeavour award; that will be awarded to her formally later this year. It is the highest attainable recognition for youth members of Girl Guides Australia. Well done to Alexa.

Finally, late last year I attended the Mount Druitt and Blacktown Police Awards. One of the officers acknowledged was Chief Inspector Bob Fitzgerald, someone I have known for quite some time, with a dedicated service of 36 years. Congratulations to Bob on the award he received, and to other police officers from our area on awards received. Thank you for your hard work and courage to help keep our community safe.

I call on all states and territories to put in place legislation to make coercive control a specific offence, and it's in line with protecting women. We have offences for assaults. Anyone who has been the victim of an assault, especially in a family violence situation, can take out an intervention order. I congratulate New South Wales; they have coercive control legislation in place for specific offences. I know Queensland will bring in this offence in 2025. Victoria must do the same.

As the shadow minister for multicultural affairs, I go to many multicultural events and speak to many women. The sad reality out there—and I won't name any specific groups—is there are so-called cultural customs or beliefs where women may not have the same rights as men. I very much point this out to the women, and the women say to me, 'You can tell us, but go and tell the blokes too.' The sad reality out there—and I've seen and experienced this firsthand in my office square—is you can have a situation where the control is not only that you are not allowed to leave the house or, if you do leave the house, you are asked where you are going and who you're going to be meeting with; you're not allowed to get a job or a drivers licence. If they apply with Immigration, they don't even see any emails from the immigration department; their passports are held. It's very much coercive control.

I congratulate Victoria Police because I know that, when these matters have been reported to them, they have taken very firm action when it comes to intervention orders. The only thing I say to Victoria Police on what is needed is: keep the victims informed of what is going on. I've had victims come to me and say: 'There's been an intervention order put in place. There's a court date.' They then believe they have to go to court and represent themselves and are not actually aware that Victoria Police will be representing them.

We need more to be done in this place. I know all governments are trying to do their utmost, but I really call on the Victorian government to take action in this space. I acknowledge that the previous Liberal government committed $3.4 billion in the Women's Budget Statement. On all sides we need to do more, especially when it comes to coercive control. It is devastating not only for the women involved but for their children, because everything is controlled.

It's always a privilege to enter this place after Australia Day and be given the opportunity to congratulate locals in Bennelong who were honoured with Australia Day awards. These awards recognise the extraordinary contributions made by Australians who have impacted our communities for the better.

I wish to extend my congratulations to Professor Christopher Maher AM, of Epping, recognised with the award of Member of the Order of Australia for his outstanding contributions to physiotherapy, particularly in pain management, positively impacting numerous lives. We also honour the late Emeritus Professor Robin King AO, who was posthumously awarded the Officer of the Order of Australia for his remarkable service to engineering, tertiary education and professional bodies, leaving a lasting legacy for our community. Furthermore, my heartfelt congratulations go to Peter Bacha OAM, honoured with the Medal of the Order of Australia for his dedication to a game I love, football, and community engagement as well, notably through his leadership of the Rydalmere Lions Football Club. Then we have Dr Starlette Beaumont Isaacs OAM. She is deserving of recognition for her service to medicine and community health, exemplified by her commitment to patient care and bulk-billing, earning her the Medal of the Order of Australia. Next we have Professor Elizabeth New OAM. She was commended for her contributions to science as a researcher, receiving the Medal of the Order of Australia, inspiring our community with her passion for discovery and innovation. I also acknowledge Tony Pang OAM. Although he resides outside of Bennelong, he has played a significant role in our local multicultural community, notably as vice-chairman and secretary of CASS, demonstrating admirable dedication to serving the elderly and disadvantaged.

Lastly, I'd like to acknowledge the City of Ryde citizen and young citizen of the year. Ryde Citizen of the Year is scouting legend Lyn Mann. Her dedication to Ryde East scouts has been extraordinary. She has been involved with them for over 40 years. Her leadership of the 1st East Ryde Scout Group has been constant, and her tireless efforts in advocating for the welfare of our citizens, her involvement in community projects and her spirit embody the essence of what it means to be a citizen in Bennelong. The Ryde Young Citizen of the Year, Areg Grigorian, is a passionate, energetic and committed young community member. I had the pleasure of working alongside Areg in his role at the Armenian National Committee, but Areg's commitment to bettering our community reaches much further than that. At the age of eight, he inspired the City of Ryde's 'Walk. Ride. Share.' campaign after seeing his brother injured in a bicycle accident. His acknowledgement is well deserved.

Congratulations to all those who received awards and acknowledgement on Australia Day.

The Christmas and new year period should be a great time to be surrounded by family and friends and to relax, reflect and celebrate. Sadly, this was not the case for the residents of the southern suburbs of Logan, the northern Gold Coast and the Scenic Rim, who had a tornado form a destructive path from Jimboomba through to Upper Coomera, through Helensvale and out to sea. Winds of over 200 kilometres an hour raged, classifying it as an EF2 tornado. Hundreds of mature trees were uprooted, and many houses, sadly, were destroyed. Sadly, one lady in Helensvale passed away after she was hit by a falling tree. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and loved ones. In the days following the storms, heavy rainfall and high winds battered the already tornado-smashed area, causing more damage including flooding, particularly due to debris choking various waterways. Nearly 1,000 homes and businesses across the Gold Coast, Logan and Scenic Rim were impacted across the electorates of Wright, Forde and Fadden. At the peak of the disaster, some 130,000 homes were without electricity, with close to 4,000 of these still not having been reconnected nearly a fortnight later. More than 100 power poles and over 50 kilometres of powerlines were brought down in the storms and needed to be replaced.

From Boxing Day to early January, I spent much of my time visiting the area and working with those affected communities—checking in with residents who had reached out to my office seeking assistance but also, importantly, finding residents who hadn't been contacted, because mobile phone services were out and people couldn't get in contact with friends and loved ones. Suburbs including Willow Vale, Wongawallan, Upper Coomera, Pimpama and Cedar Creek were especially hard hit on Christmas night, followed by flooding on New Year's Day. Witnessing that damage firsthand and seeing entire homes in Wongawallan destroyed, becoming but a pile of splintered timber, was a humbling experience. In Willow Vale, power poles were split and lying across roads and properties. We saw cars and homes crushed by fallen tree limbs. As I said, the flooding on New Year's Day created havoc.

I want to thank all of the SES and volunteers, the Energex crews and everybody involved through our rural fire brigades for their tremendous work in helping clean up this disaster area. Much more needs to be done yet. We'll continue working with our communities.

Canberra's multicultural story goes back to the 1940s, when skilled migrants flocked to the capital region to work on the Snowy Mountains Scheme. When Canberra Week began in 1977, it starred Al Grassby, the godfather of Australian multiculturalism, and honoured the First Nations and migrant communities. The National Multicultural Festival began in 1996 and has become our city 's largest festival, drawing support from volunteers in the diplomatic corps.

This weekend Canberra will celebrate the National Multicultural Festival, the event made possible by the dedication of numerous communities. I want to acknowledge some of the unsung heroes today: Andrew Yan and Robert Feng from the Chinese showcase, Jo Chivers and Duncan Smith from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander showcase, Toa Takiari and Elena Sione from the Pacific Islander showcase, Deepak Raj Gupta from India in the City, Tracy Dennis from the European village, George Karkazis from Greek Glendi, Lauren Harvey from Contact Canberra, Gonzales Olmos from Latin American Quarters, Bianca Abreu from Latin American embassies, Trevlyn Gilmour and Alicia Doherty from the USA showcase, Brooke Thomas from the belly-dancing showcase, Charles Koker from the African village, Malcolm Buchanan from the Celtic Irish showcase, Jacqui Dillon and Mandy Scott from community languages, Franco Papandrea from the Italian community, Suren Deonarain from the festival parade, Helen Musa from CityNews and Lee Donnelly from Fyshwick Fresh Food Markets.

The festival thrives on the support of community members, volunteers and organisations like the Australian National University, represented by Ashley Zmijewski, who ensure its success. And, of course, we can't forget the role of public servants such as Anita Perkins in the Community Services Directorate and the leadership of Minister Mick Gentleman. The festival community reference panel of Giovani Alvarez-Cano, Ambreen Atif, Kofi Bonsu, Malcolm Buchanan, Ruchika Goel, Luka Musicki, Toa Takiari and Chin Wong provide guidance, ensuring the festival's growth and relevance. I acknowledge, too, the festival's directors, remembering the late Domenic Mico, and celebrating the leadership of Azra Khan and Jayne Simon.

The success of the National Multicultural Festival has been reflected in it winning an award for the best Australian community event at the 2023 Australian Event Awards. From humble beginnings, the National Multicultural Festival has evolved into an event that annually attracts over a quarter of a million attendees. It is testament to Canberra's transformation into a cosmopolitan centre, enriched by the contributions of individuals from over 170 nations. As we celebrate today, let us be inspired by the shared traditions and continue to build a festival that celebrates diversity, fosters understanding and enriches our community.

In my electorate of McPherson on the southern Gold Coast we have some absolutely amazing community groups. Today I would like to make special mention of two of those: the Lions Club of Burleigh Heads and the Lions Club of Mudgeeraba. Both of those clubs put on an amazing show of support to our community on Australia Day following our citizenship ceremonies.

The Burleigh Heads Lions Club put on an absolutely awesome barbecue at the end of the citizenship ceremony that was held at the Burleigh Heads RSL. The feedback was that it was top-notch. The sausages were amazing. It was a great way to welcome our newest Australians. That ceremony was held at the Burleigh Heads RSL, and I would also like to give a shout-out to the community of the Burleigh Heads RSL. They do an outstanding job supporting veterans in our community. Over the last couple of years in particular that club has raised so much money to upgrade the facilities of their hall. It looks fantastic and they should be very proud of their efforts.

I'd also like to congratulate the Lions Club of Mudgeeraba. Every year for many years now, they have hosted a citizenship ceremony at the Mudgeeraba hall. It's a very unique ceremony that really touches on the hinterland area of the Gold Coast, Mudgeeraba and the Lions Club. The Mudgeeraba Lions Club hosts the ceremony. I go along as the presiding officer, but it's conducted like a Lions meeting, so the values and the missions that are associated with the club are certainly on display. Again, they do an amazing job, and it's a great way to be able to welcome our newest Australians.

We have in our community, as I said at the beginning, so many wonderful community groups. We also have some very amazing individuals that have contributed for many years, sometimes to one organisation but often to many organisations on the Gold Coast. Each year since I've been elected, I've held what I have called McPherson Community Achiever Awards, where I recognise those individuals. Whether they be directly from a service organisation, sporting club or local charity, I recognise them for the work they have done to support our community, because, quite frankly, without them we would not be able to help those people who, in some cases, need the most support from their communities. For those individuals, time is running out to get your nominations in for this year. There are three categories of awards. There are the McPherson Community Achiever Award, the McPherson Young Community Achiever Award for people under 25 years of age and the McPherson Surf Life Saving Community Achiever Award.

It's a great pleasure to stand here today and talk about the new Turkish delight that is about to land in Melbourne. Turkish Airlines have decided to call Melbourne their home in Australia. From March this year, there will be flights leaving Melbourne three times a week to Istanbul. In Melbourne we have Australia's largest Turkish community, so this new expansion will allow easier access to visiting family and friends and provide greater connection to their homeland. It also means that we will have more opportunities for Australians to take on different adventures. For those who want to explore Turkiye, especially Istanbul, the city of two continents, this UNESCO World Heritage location is the perfect place to stop and shop.

Conversely, Turkiye will have greater access to Australia's best capital city and capital of food, sport, wine and culture. It's expected to bring thousands of new visitors to our beautiful state of Victoria, contribute more than $132 million annually to the state's economy and create an estimated 840 jobs in our aviation and tourism sector. This connectivity is so important for our future as a nation.

Turkish Airlines flights will increase Victoria's access to key European, Middle Eastern, Balkan and African markets through this new connection. You may not know, but the Turkiye, Middle East and Africa region is one of Victoria's major trading partners, with a two-way merchandise trade valued at almost $5.5 billion in 2022-23. Daily flights by Turkish airlines, which is what they hope to grow to, would add some 3,650 tonnes of airfreight capacity annually. This didn't happen quite easily. I have to acknowledge the Deputy Premier of Victoria, Ben Carroll, who is the minister; Minister Suleyman; and all of the Victorian government, which worked hard as we met with the Turkish Airlines CEO and all the people involved in that to make this happen. It's because Victoria's got a strong connection with Turkiye that this happened, and we should acknowledge that this is one of the wonderful things that are happening under the Allan government.

I'd also like to briefly talk about a very important birthday we celebrated at the start of February: 40 years of Medicare. I am proud to be part of a party that has stood and fought hard to make sure Australians have access to a free and universal healthcare system—a system that is the envy of the world. I'd like to say thank you to the team at Nexus GP Superclinic Wallan for allowing me to come celebrate with them. It was great being at the Wallan superclinic because this was one of the superclinics that were built under the Gillard government. Of course, when the Abbott government took over, the then health minister and now opposition leader refused to open the superclinic. That way, he could walk around and say the Gillard government never delivered their commitment on superclinics. It's childish sooking, but that's what you expect with him. At the end of the day, this was a Labor project that delivered for our community. It's been servicing everyone ever since, and Labor will always stand by Medicare and universal health care.

We all know the benefits of living in or near green spaces. Plants provide homes for wildlife and protect biodiversity. Green spaces improve air quality and increase rates of physical activity, improving physical and mental health.

As Perth swelters through another hot week, our urban vegetation is particularly significant. It cools down our cities, combating the urban heat-island effect, which makes cities several degrees hotter than the surrounding countryside.

In late 2022, a group of Curtin residents concerned about Perth's shrinking urban canopy came together to form the WA Tree Canopy Advocates, which now comprises 24 groups from across WA and almost 20,000 members—all worried about Perth's dwindling tree canopy. Sarah, the founding member of WATCA, recently told me that, between 2011 and 2020, one quarter of Perth's urban canopy was lost, largely through the clearing of private land for development.

Overall canopy cover in Perth is 16 per cent, the lowest of all Australian cities. For context, cities like Barcelona, New York city and Canberra have a canopy cover target of 30 per cent or higher. Metropolitan Perth is one of the only cities in Australia that does not have a tree canopy target.

The most important thing we can do to improve our urban greenery is to protect the trees we already have, but Perth has no blanket protections for large mature trees on private land. But local councils, like Nedlands, in my electorate, are trying to change this by introducing regulations that require landowners to apply for permission to clear trees on private property that are more than eight metres tall. Last Friday, Sarah and the WA Tree Canopy Advocates were devastated to hear that the WA state government has overruled this regulation, and is instead developing a strategy that will not include any requirement for protection of trees on private land. This is despite the fact 80 per cent of the canopy being lost is on private land.

We absolutely need increased housing density and infill to address housing shortages, but we must not lose the mature canopy and green spaces that make Curtin a beautiful place to live. We must ensure that these decisions are made in the long-term interests of communities, not property developers. It takes one person a few minutes to cut down a tree, but it takes coordinated effort across all levels of government to protect one.

As part of my Curtin's Pathway to Net Zero project, local volunteers discussed the need for consistent regulation between federal, state and local governments to improve urban greening. This year's anticipated reform of the EPBC Act is an opportunity for our national nature laws to better protect biodiversity in our cities. Many in my community are calling for a national framework to protect urban vegetation so councils can sow the seeds and reap the benefits of leafy cities.

I want to give a special shout-out to a number of people across the mighty Eden-Monaro who were awarded medallions and awards during the Australia Day honours. Congratulations to Gail Eastaway of Cooma, who was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the Australia Day 2024 Honours List. Gail has had a really impressive 50-year career in journalism, starting as a cadet with the Cooma Express newspaper and covering most aspects across the Snowy Monaro, from fatal accidents to helping fight to keep Snowy Hydro in public hands. Her OAM also recognises her almost 50-year involvement with the Cooma Show and the amazing work she does for the Cooma races.

Robert Johnson's Medal of the Order of Australia was awarded for service to the Bermagui community. He is a Red Cross Lifeblood blood and plasma donor, and he drives to Canberra, which is a three-hour trip, once a fortnight to make his donation. He's raised funds through the New South Wales container deposit scheme for the Bermagui surf club by rescuing thousands upon thousands of bottles from local businesses and homes. The award also recognises his efforts with the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, particularly during the Black Summer.

Ben Maguire AM and Marina Maguire OAM run the amazing Remount facility in this electorate as well. I went out there, and spoke about them in this chamber not long ago. The work that they do with the veterans and first responders community is nothing short of amazing.

The Medal of the Order of Australia went to Michele Bootes of Merimbula for her services to surf lifesaving. She created the Same Wave project, which is a Nippers project especially designed for people with disabilities. It's celebrating its 25th year this year and has rolled out to other surf lifesaving communities across the country. On the day she found out, she was actually volunteering at the beach as well.

I want to give a special shout-out to the other members, whom I have contacted personally: Isaac Cotter, Colin Dunn, Ronald Miller, Paul Jones and Katherine Laidler. Public Service medals were awarded to Natalie Cooper, Rodney Dix and Emma Gowling. Conspicuous Service medals were awarded to Wing Commander Denis French, Warrant Officer Class One Megan Griffiths, Colonel Alison Kaine and Squadron Leader Melissa Vreugdenburg. The Medal of the Order of Australia was awarded to Darrell Hegarty, Professor Allen-John Collins and Catherine Walker. Thank you so much for the work you do in our communities. It is nothing short of amazing.

Finally, I want to say that the show season is well and truly underway. Thank you to the volunteers who put on amazing shows right across the mighty Eden-Monaro. Also, a big congratulations to the Zone 3 Young Women finalists, who are off to represent our region at the Royal Easter Show, with Sophie Heffernan representing Candelo and Emily Rowson representing Cooma. Good luck, girls.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

In continuing my contribution to the debate on the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024, I want to go back to where I was when I began the speech in the House and give this quote from 2017 from the then shadow tourism minister. The then shadow tourism minister in 2017 said:

… the increase in the Passenger Movement Charge has real consequences for tourism and will have jobs impacts in the tourism industry, which employs a million Australians, is Australia's largest services export and has been nominated as one of Australia's five super growth sectors …

There was a bit of frowning from the other side when I read that quote because I don't think they quite understood who the 2017 shadow tourism minister was. It was the now Prime Minister. It's quite funny that the Prime Minister, in 2017, was aghast at any idea of increasing the passenger movement charge yet now we see it going up by $10.

What are we doing here? What are we seeing now? We are seeing the consequences of a government that can't manage the economy. What happens when you can't manage the economy, the cost of living goes up and the cost of doing business goes up? It is that, sadly, you have to tax more and you have to charge more. That's what we're seeing right here and now. The tourism industry, at a time when the cost of doing business continues to increase, is now seeing the passenger movement charge go up, even though the Prime Minister knows that this will have real consequences. One of the great shames of a government that can't handle the economy, especially for smaller businesses, is that they are impacted by the decisions that governments have to make as a consequence of their failure to manage the economy. This is one of those decisions. We already know that the passenger movement charge in Australia is one of the highest departure taxes in the developed world. At a time when we want to be doing everything we can to help and support our tourism industry, it is unfortunate that we now see that the passenger movement charge is increasing.

One of the things that is very fortunate is that the last time the passenger movement charge increased—and that's when we had those fine words from the Prime Minister—is that the then government put a five-year freeze in place through legislation. That obviously has rolled over and that five-year freeze has ended, but we saw the passenger movement charge stay stationary for five years. This $10 increase is consistent with the CPI over that time. For that reason and because of what we did previously, the opposition is not going to stand in the way of this passenger movement charge increase. In the end, given the government's economic mismanagement, we know and understand that they have no alternatives as a big-spending government to, sadly, being a higher-regulation, higher-taxing government as well. We're not going to stand in the way of it, but what we would say is: please, government, get your economic management right, because you cannot continue to put higher taxes and higher regulatory costs on every industry in this nation. If you do, to quote the Prime Minister's own words, it will have:

… real consequences for tourism and will have jobs impacts in the tourism industry, which employs a million Australians, is Australia's largest services export and has been nominated as one of Australia's five super growth sectors …

I rise to speak to the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024, as, while on the surface it would seem of little consequence to add a $10 fee that has not been adjusted since 2017, the truth is that the approach being taken here is symptomatic of a much larger issue—that is, the challenge of encouraging travellers to spend more where they land rather than eating up their disposable income through taxes on airfares. While this charge may not have been increased in seven years, there's no lack of other additional charges added to a base fare which, in some instance, ultimately mean the on-costs can sometimes be more expensive than the base fare.

The charge to be imposed on every passenger onboard a departing international flight from 1 July 2024 will add $10 to the current passenger movement charge of $60, meaning each airfare, regardless of where you are headed, will be $10 more expensive from 1 July. Whether or not this $10 will change anyone's mind about taking the trip in or out of Australia really isn't the issue to me—after all, we're only talking about adding another 1½ per cent to the cost of a return flight from Melbourne or Sydney to Bali. It is, however, about just how many additional costs are borne by a traveller and the transparency around where these fees or taxes are even going in the first place or why they are ultimately there. Finding out what charges and taxes are added to the cost of an air ticket is usually pretty straightforward. They are usually all documented at the bottom of your ticket receipt. But finding out whose pocket those charges end up in and for what purpose is a completely different scenario.

I have to declare here that I have family who work in the travel industry, and over many years I've seen my family members struggle to adjust to the changing environment. Whether it was the shrinking commissions on all forms of travel, particularly those available on airfares for agents, or the increasingly angry discussions I see them having with customers who are frustrated that everything seems to be getting so expensive, it can be emotionally draining watching someone you love work themselves to the ground for diminishing returns while others come forward to take an increase in cuts. The passenger movement charge used to be more commonly known as the departure tax, and for a long time now it has simply been included in airfares, so it's been difficult to actually feel the pinch. For agents and industry, this tax is recognisable via the code AU. But there are other taxes that are also routinely applied, and they include the passenger service charge, which has the code WY; the safety and security charge, which applies to all international and domestic airfares, which has the code WG; and the passenger service charge on domestic-only flights, which has the code QR. Then, depending on where you're going, there are also arrival charges or taxes, and this is where I take issue with the entire system.

In terms of providing a real-life example: last September I took my children and my parents to Bali for a holiday. We hadn't been overseas since before 2020, so I'd been saving really hard for a long time for this trip. Looking back at my airfares, the following taxes and fees were charged. There was, of course, the base fee for each ticket, which is a fee that covers exactly what you would expect it to cover: the seat that you're sitting on in the plane. Then there was the passenger movement charge, which, as I said earlier, used to be known as the departure tax and is an Australian government tax on all passengers departing for an overseas destination. In my case, this was charged at $60 per ticket. Then came the safety and security charge departure tax, which is an Australian government charge, again, on every domestic and international air ticket. It was introduced following 9/11 and seemingly is charged to cover the cost of underwriting safety and security services on all flights in Australian airspace. For this reason, the charge imposed on a long-distance domestic flight is likely to be higher than on an international flight. For me on my Bali flights, the charge was $32.11 on each ticket.

The passenger service charge departure international tax was the next one on my ticket. This tax goes to the Australian airport you're using and is payable for both departure and arrival. The amount for this tax varies from one airport to another, but in my case I paid this fee on three separate occasions, as we travelled to Bali via Brisbane. In total, this fee cost me another $110.77 per ticket. Finally, a charge that was coded as TD, of the amount of $24.20, was applied as an additional passenger service charge at some point—but, to be honest, I really don't know why. It seemed to be applied when I added the domestic leg to our international tickets, but not even my travel agent could actually tell me what it was for.

In total, I ended up paying an additional $227.08 per person for each of those airfares, or nearly $1,400, and that doesn't include the money that I then paid in the form of an arrival tax when we landed in Bali. That's $1,400 that was no longer available for me or my kids to spend. We couldn't spend it in Bali supporting local businesses, we couldn't spend it on the way out in the airports, and we certainly couldn't bank it and put it towards another holiday at another time. But the shocking truth is that, had we been going somewhere like Los Angeles in the United States, the taxes would have been even higher, with the total on-costs increasing by an additional $40 per person, or another $240 overall.

While I understand why this government would argue a $10 increase in this one passenger movement charge should hardly be challenged, I just don't agree. Every additional on-cost charge by a government should always be scrutinised, as they rarely exist in isolation and, as we have seen with the introduction of the safety and security charges, once applied they just don't ever seem to be removed.

It should be said that, as a citizen, there is no tax for arriving back in Australia, and children under 12 and international travellers transiting through Australia to another country are exempt. It is also worth noting that these charges are not just levied on Australian residents but also borne by tourists, based on what I can only assume is the idea that, if you're wealthy enough to travel overseas, the government would like a piece of the action. But my question here then is: why should the government take money that would otherwise be spent in small businesses and tourism outlets both here and internationally?

When it's introduced in July 2024, the $10 increase in the passenger movement charge will ultimately add another 1.43 per cent to a $701 trans-Tasman return economy airfare and another 0.32 per cent to a $3,000 return flight from Sydney to Dallas. Many will assume that, given travellers heading overseas have already been whacked with massive price increases since the resumption of overseas travel, a $10 increase will just be a drop in the bucket—right? Surely it doesn't matter that both domestic and international tourists will take the hit—after all, you're either wealthy enough to travel in the first place or you're just a tourist and you don't vote, so you really have no choice but to cop it. But even the government is prepared to confess that this $10 drop in the bucket will ultimately earn around $100 million per year for the Australian government.

In making the case for this increase, the government can point to other countries with far higher departure taxes. Leave the United Kingdom on a flight bound for Singapore or Hong Kong, and the air passenger duty, which is the United Kingdom's equivalent of the passenger movement charge, is $172 per passenger. But, even with that as the international standard, the question remains: is it the amount being charged or the very principle of the charge that needs to be challenged here? Once collected, what is this money even going to be used for?

Looking at this through a broader lens: after the horror years of 2020 and 2021, the tourism gross domestic product, or GDP, rose 60.1 per cent, to $57.1 billion, in chain volume terms in 2022-23, but this remains below the 2018-19 peak of $63.4 billion.

Tourism's overall contribution to our economic GDP growth rose to 2.5 per cent in 2022-23, but again this remains below the 2018-19 level of 3.1 per cent. It is currently estimated that 44 per cent of every tourism dollar in Australia is spent in regional destinations, and tourism hovers around fourth-largest of Australia's exporting industries, accounting for 8.2 per cent of Australia's export earnings. Domestically there are 8,478 flights per week, with 56.6 million passengers being carried over the course of the year. This is 26 per cent growth year on year. In total, 76.2 million seats were sold in the last 12 months. That's up 19 per cent year on year. But this is still significantly less than the prepandemic peak of nearly 78 million. Whilst internationally we have recently bounced back to an average of 2,118 flights per week to 61 destinations, it's still behind the 2,183 flights that were taken in January 2019.

Importantly, tourism directly employs some 666,000—or, as we just heard the previous speaker say, one million—Australians, making up five per cent of Australia's workforce, and there are nearly 11½ thousand travel agents spread around Australia. Over 355 of them are registered as being in my electorate of North Sydney, and these are the people I worry about. They will now need to look their customers in the eye and inform them that, through no fault of their own and with no meaningful benefit to themselves, the airfares they're quoting them are guaranteed to increase in price by $10, come 1 July. Ten dollars across 56.6 million passengers is a lot more than the $100 million gain currently predicted by the government, so I'm not sure what to make of that calculation. But then, talking to those who work in this industry and those who travel, the lack of transparency and accountability is something we're becoming way too accustomed to. So next time you find yourself angered by the behaviour of airlines or travel agents, spare a thought for those involved in the industry, for they seem to currently be both the whipping boy and the trough when it comes to political intentions.

Given this, on behalf of the community of North Sydney, I do not support this legislation—not because I think the dollar increase is unreasonable in and of itself but because I just don't think it's okay to whack an extra cost onto a service on the basis that it shouldn't really matter. I would, however, very much welcome a full, thorough and transparent review of all taxes currently applied within the travel industry. For that reason, I stand ready to work with the government to see that realised.

I thank the MPs who took the time to contribute to what is a really important debate. I want to thank the member for North Sydney, whose contribution I was glad to hear. I respect her perspective. She has obviously thought about this matter a great deal.

I commend the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024 to the House. It's an important part of the government's overall strategy for managing the security of our borders, an area where costs are growing year on year. The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024 will amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to implement one of our government's budget measures—that is, increasing the passenger movement charge from $60 to $70, effective from 1 July. As I mentioned, this is one of several measures the government announced in the 2023-24 budget as part of our overall economic and fiscal strategy to make sure that we can continue to deliver services where costs are rising. Of course, it is very important to continue to deliver a strong budget, and you'll note that our Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been able to deliver a budget surplus for the first time in a very long time. The increase of $10 is broadly in line with inflation. Some of the other speakers have noted that it was 2017 when this charge was last increased, and that $10 increase that we're seeing on top of the $60 is broadly in line with inflation. The additional revenue generated from this increase will help advance Australia's economic interests and support the rising cost of services on our border. I'm pleased to support this bill before the parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

I rise today in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Reliable internet access is now an expectation and necessity in 21st century Australia; we're a quarter of the way into this century—wow! Telecommunication access and reliability is vital in much of today's economic, social, cultural and political activity.

We've seen in recent years just how important broadband connectivity has become, with hundreds of thousands of people socialising, working and studying online. That was only heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it continues today. The six-hour Tasmania Telstra outage in February 2022 and the more recent 14-hour national Optus outage left people unable to connect with loved ones, TV and radio stations inaccessible and urgent emails unread and unanswered, with the day-to-day routines of many coming to a halt. Such outages cost businesses thousands of dollars when payments cannot be taken, while the simplest of tasks are unable to be communicated to co-workers. It may be seen as a minor hindrance or annoyance to some, but in an emergency communication becomes a critical tool to save property or, above all, life. As the member for a rural and regional electorate, I know this is especially true in the regions.

This bill will deliver certainty to consumers and industry alike around access to these critical services. Through changes to five key areas of telecommunications regulation, the statutory infrastructure provider—or SIP—regime, this bill will also improve safeguards for Australians when they access broadband and voice services. Schedule 1 of the bill refines the statutory infrastructure provider, SIP, regime, which currently ensures all people in Australia can access high-speed broadband wherever they live or work. This will bring private networks for new developments under the SIP regime. Such networks are sometimes deployed in lifestyle or retirement villages or in multiunit buildings and have not previously been subject to SIP obligations. Bringing those areas under this regime will mean consumers serviced by private networks will have greater certainty that they can access broadband and voice at appropriate standards.

Schedule 2 of the bill will provide powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to encourage better compliance with requirements for new installations. This will provide a mechanism for SIPs to be required to pay compensation to customers where they do not meet a standard or a rule. While there are no detailed standards or rules in place due to the recent processes to finalise NBN Co's special access undertaking and standard terms, the existence of the mechanism will provide incentives to lift performance.

Schedule 3 of the bill provides powers for ACMA to publish the identities of carriers and carriage service providers in its reports on certain customer service issues and to share information more easily with the government. Importantly, this will allow consumers to make purchasing decisions that are better informed and improve competition and service delivery.

Schedule 4 of the bill will amend the universal service obligation so the minister can determine specific universal service areas in Australia. This will provide flexibility for potential future changes such as bringing Norfolk Island into the universal service regime. While several legislative steps need to be taken for this to occur, this is a foundational step that may assist in the future.

Schedule 5 of the bill makes technical amendments to specific aspects of the regulatory framework. This includes important changes to enhance the enforcement of the carrier separation rules of the Telecommunications Act and the Regional Broadband Scheme, which funds NBN Co's fixed wireless and satellite networks.

I am particularly pleased to see measures in the bill that will give the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman a clearer role in resolving disputes about service connections. Under the new laws, the ombudsman will be able to work with customers and providers to resolve problems. My office often assists farmers and others who live in the most regional part of Lyons who need additional assistance from telcos to make sure they can access the phone and internet services they need. This bill makes it easier for rural and regional Tasmanians to get access to broadband and voice services and empowers the ombudsman to work with both customers and providers should issues arise during the connection process.

At the end of last year in my role as Chair of the House Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, I had the opportunity to table the committee's most recent report, Connecting the country: missioncritical, from the inquiry into current investment into multicarrier regional infrastructure. The report goes directly to what I am speaking about today—ensuring that the necessary infrastructure and regulations are in place so all Australians, including regional and rural Australians, can reliably access critical telecommunications services.

During the inquiry that informed the report, the committee heard from consumers and industry alike, including state and territory governments, Indigenous communities, primary producers, councils, business chambers, emergency services, health services and community groups. They were a very complex set of hearings and we took a lot of evidence. The overwhelming feedback from across the country was clear: reliable telecommunication services are not a nice-to-have but as essential a service as electricity or running water in our everyday lives. Part of the title of the committee's report—'mission critical'—says it all. I am proud to be part of a government that recognises this and is committed to delivering improved communications infrastructure, services and resilience for all Australians.

I would like to thank the minister for her support through the process. I think she is doing terrific work in this regard. In my electorate of Lyons, for example, I was recently able to announce funding for new mobile base stations in Sheffield, Tea Tree and Ansons Bay through the improving mobile coverage round. This funding delivered my election commitment of a $2.25 million investment by the Albanese Labor government to improve mobile phone coverage in these areas. At the end of last year I met with the Ansons Bay Telecommunications Working Group to discuss the progress of the new mobile phone tower and just how important this project is to members of this isolated north-east community. For those who may not know Ansons Bay, it is a 'one road in and one road out' community. It's a beautiful little spot up in the north-east of Tasmania. It's very isolated and prone to bushfires and so telecommunications is an absolute must.

Residents of Lyons have also benefited from the government's Mobile Black Spot Program, which has extended and improved mobile coverage in Pyengana, Murdunna, Liena, Colebrook. Blackstone Heights, Lachlan and Wilmot, just to name a few. Further, the Albanese government's $480 million investment to upgrade NBN fixed wireless services has meant more than 7,500 residents and businesses across Lyons now have access to uncapped satellite broadband services through NBN Co's Sky Muster Plus product, delivering faster speeds and responding to the demand for more data. That's not to mention the families and businesses in Lyons that already have and those who soon will be able to upgrade to a full-fibre broadband connection as part of the Albanese government's plan for a better National Broadband Network. These upgrades are possible thanks to the Albanese government's $2.4 billion investment to expand full-fibre access to an additional 1.5 million premises by the end of 2025. I think we're a long way removed from the words of former prime minister Abbott, who I think back then said five megabytes or something like that was all you needed in the regions. I can't remember the exact quote, but it's laughable now when we look at the data needs in the regions, not just in homes but also in businesses and on farms, where they are using technology on farm. The communications requirements are just growing and growing. It's fair to say that the telecommunications requirements in the bush are just as critical, if not more so, than they are in elements of the city.

My constituents in Evandale, Longford, Perth, Scamander, Bridgewater, Campbell Town, New Norfolk, Old Beach and Pontville can now upgrade from the slower, less reliable copper broadband network retained by the former coalition government to affordable, reliable, high-speed fibre broadband with no upfront installation cost. It is investments like these that ensure more of my constituents—more Australians—can take advantage of all the opportunities of the digital global economy.

Taken together, the measures in this bill will improve access to broadband and voice services for people across Australia, including in the regions. Australians expect to have access to broadband and voice services and to be able to access these services with a minimum of fuss. They expect the infrastructure to be built and the necessary regulations and consumer safeguards to be in place. This bill is key to meeting those expectations, to improving access to critical communications in Australia and to ensuring certainty for consumers and industry alike of access to broadband and voice services. I commend the bill to the House.

I too rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I make the point that the National Broadband Network is critical infrastructure in regional Australia. It connects people, it connects communities and it connects businesses.

Many people will know that the electorate of Nicholls is one of the food bowls, if not the food bowl, of Australia, and agriculture is incredibly important to our region and our economy. The NBN and a reliable internet connection have become a critical element of operating modern, productive and profitable agricultural businesses, whether it be the links between agricultural machinery in the field, like tractors, headers or other machinery that have internet links to GPS or other outside pieces of technology; whether it be access to the Bureau of Meteorology data which helps farmers make decisions; or whether it be, as it was in an occupation I had before coming to this place, using the internet to link together irrigation networks—both networks on farm, where an internet connection can inform farmers of what's happening in relation to soil moisture levels, water and the status of irrigation events, and broader networks. That's a key part of the Goulburn Valley Water and Goulburn-Murray Water connected system. That helps with water efficiency, in that broadband internet networks can talk to each other and can inform Goulburn-Murray Water headquarters when to fill channels because irrigators might need to use that water. Doing that in more of a real-time sense means we have much better water efficiency. A lot of that great technological work and enhancement of the broadband network that led to that being able to be done happened under the previous coalition government.

It's also in terms of manufacturing and service industries. Reliable broadband internet connectivity is critical for emergency service workers to be able to communicate with each other and see what's happening both with weather and with emergency events. In relation to that in particular, I want to make special mention of some of the things that are going on in Victoria at the moment. There are some serious bushfire threats, mostly, as I understand it, in the electorates of Mallee and Wannon, and my thoughts are with those people and the members for those two electorates because they're very concerned at the moment about the bushfires that are happening. A lot of people are also without power in Victoria at the moment as a result of the failure of the network. On the ground in those electorates—in Wannon and Mallee in particular—I'm sure that the enhanced internet access is helping the firefighters and emergency services deal with those problems.

When I was campaigning for the 2022 election, in which I was elected to this place, there was some funding that was committed to enhancing the resilience of some of those broadband networks and the towers, and that has certainly helped in relation to the flooding that occurred in my electorate and also in relation to the fires. That's something that successive governments need to keep doing. They need to look at how we can make sure people have reliable internet not only in the good times but also when they are suffering from some threats.

As at 1 November 2023, the electorate of Nicholls has around 84,000 premises ready connect to the NBN, with 71 per cent served by one of a number of fixed-line technologies, which may include fibre to the basement, fibre to the node, fibre to the curb, hybrid fibre coaxial and fibre to the premises. There are approximately 11,000 premises that are fibre to the node within Nicholls that may be able to access fibre to the premises and an additional 9,700 fibre-to-the-node premises scheduled for an upgrade in the future. Over 6,000 of those are currently under construction. These upgrades have taken place in some of the smaller areas in my electorate, including Cobram, Echuca, Kialla, Kyabram, Nagambie, Numurkah, Rochester, Seymour—which has suffered from some flooding in recent times—Tatura and Yarrawonga, and an upgrade in Broadford is expected to be completed later this year. It's a continuing effort to make sure the latest technology gets, in particular, to the regional areas. This demonstrates that the NBN is not static infrastructure; it is being improved, expanded to more regional towns and growing constantly with new development.

This bill looks to provide a refresh to a system that was introduced by the coalition government, setting out rules for the connection and supply of internet and voice services. It appears to be largely an uncontroversial bill and it will be supported, but there are some issues that we have uncovered that we want to highlight. Firstly, the bill was promised by the minister to be in the House at the end of 2022. That's 2022, not 2023, and here we are now. If there had been comprehensive industry engagement that wound up satisfying or resolving concerns that had been raised, you could understand this delay, but, as is often the case with the Albanese government, unfortunately, there was no such consultation. Even after this delay, the feedback we've got is that the minister did not listen to many industry concerns and failed to properly engage with them.

This bill primarily makes a number of changes to the operation and enforcement of what is known as the statutory infrastructure provider, or the SIP regime. The regime sets rules related to the connection and supply of internet and voice services across Australia and was introduced by the coalition government in July 2020, acting essentially as a universal broadband service guarantee. In the history of telecommunications in Australia, universal service guarantees have played an important part in ensuring that regional and remote Australians such as the people in my electorate of Nicholls have access to quality services. SIPs are carriers that must provide basic wholesale broadband services in the areas they service. The NBN is the default SIP for the vast majority of Australian premises, but other carriers that have installed network infrastructure to connect premises in areas such as new real estate developments, shopping centres or apartments may also be deemed to be SIPs. There are 32 registered SIPs in Australia, covering areas large and small.

The SIPs have obligations under the Telecommunications Act 1997 to connect premises in their service areas to their networks. These obligations include ensuring wholesale services are made available to retailers to provide connections for consumers, including setting minimum broadband speeds. In February 2021 the then minister for communications announced plans to engage industry stakeholders on new standards, rules and benchmarks for SIP networks. This government continued that process, and, in late August 2022, the Minister for Communications announced a new round of public consultation on the laws and invited submissions on a draft bill. The submissions were to close, after a relatively short period, in late September 2022, and the bill was supposed to be before the parliament by the end of 2022. But the bill was finally introduced in the House in the very last sitting week of 2023. Maybe the government were a bit distracted during 2023—I'm not sure. So, a year late, here we are.

The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that, while there was general support for the provisions of the draft bill, concerns raised during the consultation process resulted in amendments and further consultation on changes to the draft bill. Stakeholders—some in my electorate—may have felt that they have been ignored and their concerns about the disclosure provisions haven't been listened to properly. But the coalition generally supports this bill because it provides a range of technical updates to tweak the system which the coalition introduced. Such tweaks are of course normal and expected in such a fast-changing telecommunications environment, where technology is evolving at a very fast pace.

As I explained earlier, digital connectivity and new technologies are very important, especially in regional Australia. This parliament has a responsibility—the coalition did it, and I'm pleased that this government is continuing on with that work—to make sure that that digital connectivity is available to all, not just the easy stuff, which is so often the way. The easy stuff is where the big populations are and you need fewer assets for a higher density of people, so that gets done, and then, where there are low density populations, that gets pushed out or doesn't happen at all.

The coalition will be watching carefully to see what the Senate inquiry comes up with. We've reserved our right to consider amendments recommended by that committee, but we're broadly supportive and we encourage the government to continue to be committed to providing the latest technology and broadband access to those in regional Australian. People in metropolitan areas benefit from that, even though they may not know it. People sitting in some of the metropolitan seats in Melbourne and Sydney are interested in what their broadband speeds are in their own houses or in their own businesses. But, as is so often the case—and we in the National Party are here to explain that and advocate for that across this parliament—what happens in regional Australia affects you in the metropolitan areas. That's because so many of our resources—whether they be in agriculture or mining or a range of other industries—depend on the viability and productivity of regional Australia. It's important that all legislation looks out to the regions as well as the metropolitan areas.

I'm truly grateful that we've been joined by the Minister for Communications. At the outset, I'm going to be very bipartisan and give the minister some kudos. Her first visit as the minister, I understand, was to the Riverina electorate. We met with Peter, Meegan, Todd and Lily McCarten at Naradhan. The McCartens operate a large mixed farming enterprise. At the time, they'd recently upgraded their internet through NBN Australia's Sky Muster Plus satellite service, and the minister was good enough to not only go and visit them at their farm but also, I understand, follow up with them and with the services that were being provided to that district. That's important. That's what a good minister does.

At the time, the minister also looked at the new solar farm on the Newell Highway just outside West Wyalong in Bland Shire. I can happily report to the minister that that is progressing very nicely. Each time I travel along the Newell Highway between West Wyalong and Forbes, I look at that project and reflect back to that day. Again, it's what can be done when ministers look to regional Australia, as the member for Nicholls has just said. I joined the parliament with the member for Greenway back in 2010. I believe we've got a very good working relationship, and that's important. As the member for Nicholls pointed out, the government should look at every piece of policy through the lens of how it is going to affect regional Australia, because it's regional Australia where the action is. I appreciate, Deputy Speaker Payne, that you're from this fine centre of Canberra. Canberra could not operate without what happens in regional Australia—it just could not. We saw that writ large during COVID. In those very dark days, it was regional Australia that led the way. It led the economy, through providing the food and through providing the resources that kept food on the table and the balance of payments as they should be. That is why communications are also so vital.

Back when my father was farming, if they needed to sell grain or stock, they had to get off their tractor or their farm implement, get in the ute, drive back to the house, get on the landline and hope that it coincided with the time that the seller or the buyer was available. Now they can do it on their tractors. They can do it and keep that tractor, or header or harvester or scarifier or whatever it might be, still operating. They can do it via telecommunications.

And farming is now very much in the digital world. Indeed, the farm equipment is operating with GPS technology. So it's not as it was, back in the day when a young Michael McCormack would sometimes deliberately drive the tractor off-line so that he wouldn't have to do it the next day, and his exasperated father would tell him: 'That was it! You've been banned from doing this until you can get your line straight,' and that was always great! But these days, the tractors literally drive themselves and not a skerrick of property or land is wasted. And that's important. So that's why it is so important that we get communications right and continue that investment. That's why it's good that the minister is here.

This legislation does make a number of changes to the operation and enforcement of the statutory infrastructure provider regime. I heard the member for Nicholls talking about how important communications technology, digital technology, is to the irrigation systems and the channels and the operators within his fine electorate, where they grow so much of the food and fibre this nation relies upon. Again, that is of critical importance.

The SIP regime in this particular piece of legislation was established by the coalition government. It set rules related to the connection and supply of internet and voice services across Australia. The changes in this bill are aimed at providing better access to these services, with additional safeguards—and safeguards are so important—for consumers, and improved recourse in the event there is disputation. The bill seeks to provide clarity and certainty for industry and consumers.

As the member for Nicholls has pointed out, the coalition is broadly supportive of the bill. We do believe it is late. It has been unnecessarily delayed. I get that the minister has had other things on her mind, and I know how busy she would be. It's a big, broad portfolio.

The bill would also confirm the ability of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to deal with consumer complaints on SIP related issues. In addition, the bill expands the powers of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, relating to reports on the performance of telecommunications companies. That is vital, because the government needs to ensure that companies are kept to their KPIs and are upfront and transparent and accountable to government.

Government makes a big investment in the communications space. I appreciate that telecommunications companies do as well. But the SIP regime, as I say, was introduced by the coalition government. That was back in July 2020. It essentially acts as a universal broadband service guarantee. And those guarantees are necessary.

I know that my predecessor in the seat of Riverina, Kay Hull, crossed the floor on the sale of Telstra because she understood just how important it was, for those universal service obligations, for the biggest telco in the country to ensure that—both then and in the long distance future—they didn't forget the bush and that they didn't ignore their responsibilities when it came to providing those sorts of services. Given the fact that they are, in a sense, relying on government investment, given the fact that they have a lot of customers, some of those communities don't have a lot of consumers. They don't have a lot of people, but their ability to tap in to the economy and provide what is needed is absolutely important.

I'll give you two examples of those kinds of communities. One is Murringo near Young. I can remember the delight of that community when they were put online, so to speak, with a telecommunications tower. It brought them into the known universe. They had felt so isolated. I can remember a number of women in that community coming up to me at the launch and saying how important it was for them to be able to run their little businesses which were selling to the world and how this had brought them online. But it was more important, perhaps, for their children, some of whom were in the vital years of schooling. Every year in education is important, but year 12 of course is a big year. In year 11 and 12, when young people are doing their high school certificate, to be able to learn online and have access after they go home from school when they're doing their homework et cetera is of critical importance to their futures. The people of Murringo—particularly the women of Murringo—were so delighted.

The other community I do want to mention is Goobarragandra. There's a fellow there called Tony Keremelevski and Tony was very concerned about the fact that so many people used that wonderful little 'escape' on the river near Tumut for holidays and camping, particularly during summer but during other seasons as well. The population swelled to double, if not quadruple, during the warmer months, and there were no telecommunications whatsoever. It becomes a safety issue. Not only that, but Tony had family members who weren't exactly in the best of health, and he was concerned that one day there would be an incident either for the visitors or closer to home and they would not able to communicate with emergency authorities.

Tumut went out of my electorate, but I maintained advocacy through the member for Parkes, who was then in a regional development role as minister. We were able to get that communications tower for that community. I well recall ringing the member for Parkes on the day just to prove that the technology worked. It was rather an amusing conversation. I'm not quite sure that the member for Parkes realised that the entire audience there was listening. I think the transcript is available for those who wish to view it. It was rather an interesting conversation. I then announced to him that he was talking to the entire audience, and he changed his conversation very quickly. He was a good regional development minister who understood exactly what was required in these local communities. Murringo and Goobarragandra are vital for different reasons.

As I say, this legislation is important. It is broadly supported by the coalition. The bill does look to provide a refresh to a system introduced by us when we were in government, setting out the rules for connection, supply of internet and voice services. I would impress upon the minister—the member for Greenway—that, in relation to future rounds of mobile phone towers, the people who are ticking off on those should look beyond government electorates. I do think that's important. The member for Indi has joined us. The member for Indi's electorate never missed out under a coalition government, even though the seat was no longer in government when we were running the show. Sometimes I was quite jealous of the number of towers that the member for Indi got, as opposed to the member for Riverina—but that's another story! It was based on need and it was based on geography.

They were excellent applications!

I will ignore the interjections! No doubt they were excellent applications—not just by the Independent member for Indi, who is also a good friend of mine.

The member for Wide Bay sits behind me too. He, as much as anybody, understands the importance of good communications not just because of his advocacy for his electorate but because his electorate takes in Noosa. That's important. The number of visitors who go there each summer is incredible. As a former police officer, he would well understand the importance of good communications and good mobile phone technology in a time of emergency and crisis.

This bill is something that the Minister for Communications promised would be in the House by the end of 2022. It is now 2024. I get the fact that she is busy. I understand the fact that this is largely an uncontroversial bill. But I do impress upon the minister—and she understands this because she not only is the communications minister but also communicate with other members—the importance of continuing the investment in regional Australia. This is not just for regional Australia and rural Australia but for remote Australia. I know we went through a complete referendum process last year for a voice to parliament. I'll tell you what's more important than a voice to parliament in remote communities in, particularly, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. I'll throw in South Australia, western New South Wales and even Queensland. Why stop there? What's important is getting Aboriginal communities to be able to have a voice on the phone that can be heard because there's technology there and they can be connected to the outside world. If ever there was importance for a voice for those communities, it's through mobile phone technology.

The bill is important. The bill is supported. Again, I'm pleased that the minister has seen fit to come in and listen to the contributions. That's not always done by government ministers. I know this minister has knowledge across the brief, and I appreciate her for that. I appreciate the work that she is doing. Again, it's so important that regional Australia is front and centre of absolutely anything to do with communications, because regional Australia is where the action in the economy is.

I acknowledge the contribution from the previous speaker, the member for Riverina. There's a really good reason why regional MPs are speaking on this bill: it really matters to us. I, too, appreciate having the Minister for Communications and the minister's team in the room to listen to our contributions. Much of what you hear you would have heard before, but you will continue to hear it until we have solved the problem of telecommunications connectivity right across rural, regional and remote Australia.

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This bill makes important reforms to the way we regulate internet providers like the NBN so that the system better meets the needs of a modern Australia. I welcome the reforms to make the internet more available and more reliable, especially in country Australia. I want to put on the record that I thank the minister for her work on this. It's critical because, in regional, rural and remote Australia, the NBN rollout has really been disappointingly slow. If ever there was a case of overpromising and underdelivery, it is the disappointment for rural, regional and remote Australians from the time that the NBN was announced. I will continue to advocate until it is as good as it can possibly be. In Indi towns like Violet Town and across the Strathbogie shire, many residents rely on fixed wireless and satellite. Those who do have access to the NBN face congestion, slower speeds and dropouts still to this very day.

This bill is a step towards strengthening consumer protections when it comes to the internet, because when you pay for a service like the NBN you expect it to work. This bill will improve consumer safeguards through a series of amendments, including: (1) requiring providers to pay compensation to customers if providers contravene a standard, including standards about connecting and supplying internet; (2) expanding the powers of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to resolve complaints about internet connections; and (3) empowering the internet provider regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, to issue notices to developers who do not install functional, fibre-ready facilities in new developments, because, when you move into a new home, you expect your power and water to be connected, and the same standards should apply to the internet. Finally, the bill also empowers the ACMA to publicly identify internet carriers that aren't up to scratch. This will help give consumers more information on how the NBN and other internet service providers are performing, including which are meeting standards and which are lagging behind. And I am always pro transparency.

I am supporting this bill because all Australians deserve better consumer protections when it comes to the delivery and supply of reliable, adequate internet. People across my electorate of Indi work online, study online and keep in touch with family and friends online. Telehealth has made health care more accessible to those of us in the regions, and this is critical; I can't overstate it. Our agricultural communities and our farmers have come to rely on real-time weather information and other internet provided technologies—storm tracking is a case in point in the last 24 hours—to protect their livestock, their crops and their very livelihood.

We rely on internet connectivity to pay at local stores, and even stalls at farmers markets may take cards more than cash now; they have their little squares. At times they've had to stand with one leg facing towards the breeze to try and get connectivity. It needs to be reliable. They rely on payment systems operating all the time, not just some of the time.

Back at home, it's not just one person online, of course. It's often mum and dad in the lounge room, perhaps watching television or potentially doing office work, and their kids in the bedrooms, studying or video-calling their friends.

We especially need reliable phone and internet in times of emergencies, as other speakers have pointed to—something that people in rural and regional Australia know so deeply. Only yesterday those terrible storms and bushfires sweeping across Victoria heightened the awareness of the dependency that we have on internet that works. A survey by the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, ACCAN, a fantastic organisation, found that 88 per cent of respondents expect their phone and internet services to work during emergencies like bushfires and floods.

In every Australian household, and especially in country areas, we're relying on the internet more than ever. It is an essential service. But, with so many households in my electorate relying on dodgy NBN connections or snail-pace ADSL lines, still, clearly regional Australia is getting left behind, and we can't allow that to be the case. I hear from constituents whose ADSL lines are flooded at the first sign of rain, meaning their home internet is offline more than it's online. I hear from constituents whose only option, if they want any home internet at all, is to buy expensive aftermarket satellite hardware. I've heard from a constituent whose job was put at risk because they simply couldn't rely on a consistent connection through the day.

In Mansfield, businesses are having to adjust their schedule based on when the internet connection is fast enough to handle videoconferences with their clients. In Kinglake, in the south of my electorate, Pam Lawless lives just off the main road, but NBN Co says it has no plans to connect her to the network. Despite living less than two kilometres from the outskirts of metropolitan Melbourne—it's extraordinary, really—the best that NBN Co can suggest is that she look into satellite options. She finds it frustrating that, despite living and working on the fringes of a major city, she and her neighbours feel like they're being left behind.

That's why in 2022 I introduced my Faster Internet for Regional Australia Bill. This bill would have required the NBN and internet service providers to do better by regional Australia. My bill would have required internet providers to provide average speeds of 25 megabits per second all day, every day. It would have ensured regional customers aren't waiting a month to get connected, when people in the cities get connected in a day. Even where people have an NBN connection, there is no guarantee they'll get what they pay for. Broadband providers often advertise speeds which do not match what customers actually receive. The standard of 19 days to provide a new service in regional Australia and up to three days to fix a network fault is simply too slow to attract businesses to come to regional areas with confidence. It's clear to me that the NBN rollout has not been delivering for regional Australia, and we have to keep on this; we have to make sure it does. It's very encouraging to see the government moving on this issue; it truly is.

In addition to this bill, I note new industry standards on how telcos manage financial hardship. So many families are truly doing it tough now, and paying these bills is a real hardship. Ensuring those trying to balance their budgets are not disconnected from study, work or just staying in touch with family shows the government can listen and design fairer processes for people doing it tough, and I congratulate them for that.

The School Student Broadband Initiative has also been so valuable in the past few years, and I'm glad to see the government recommit for another two years. It's really important, and I thank them for continuing this program that was started by the coalition—so credit where credit is due across the board. The program provides free NBN access to families who are otherwise struggling to afford it on their own. With over 40 per cent of beneficiaries from this program coming from the regions, this is a commonsense policy for ensuring our kids in rural and regional Australia don't miss out on their education. We've seen horrifying data in the last few days indicating that rural and regional kids are behind, and we cannot reinforce that disadvantage by not having access for every single child to this fundamental and essential service. Unfortunately, the very need for this program shows that rural and regional Australia is still missing out on world-class connectivity.

Another positive development is the new special access undertaking, or SAU, which was finalised only last year. The SAU expands the powers of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to oversee and regulate the service standards of NBN across Australia. This is a really important part of making sure internet users get fast, reliable and affordable internet. When this SAU expires in 2040 it's expected that NBN Co will make more than $100 billion from consumers—so they need to deliver on the promise. It's only fair that customers are getting what they pay for, which is why the SAU requires NBN Co to consult with consumer advocacy groups to make sure the standards are actually working. To make consultation truly work, I'd like to see the government fund a communications consumer organisation to lead engagement with NBN Co and ensure the interests of all Australians, including and especially those in the regions, are well represented.

The SAU also means the ACCC can now oversee and regulate the NBN's minimum service performance benchmarks. For anyone listening at home, it's acronym city here! I apologise for that; there needs to be a glossary of terms at the end of this speech! But it underscores that this is a complex but critical area of public policy. It is really important that these minimum service standards improve because, right now, they're just not good enough for people living in regional, rural and remote Australia. Internet connectivity especially continues to be a daily challenge; it really does.

I will continue to advocate—and the minister knows that—a better NBN for the regions, whether that be through mechanisms like the special access undertaking from NBN Co, the universal service obligation or the guarantee that a person will receive phone service—that's under review right now. I'll continue to work with local councils and with the Indi Telecommunications Advisory Group, or ITAG, which the member for Riverina was just referring to. The extraordinary success that Indi has had in being funded for mobile telecommunications towers isn't an accident; that is a very deliberate collaborative approach across my electorate, with nine local governments and me working together to put in top-quality applications to government funds and to do everything we can as a community to identify where there are problems and work with government—whoever's in government—to try and get them fixed.

I'm very, very proud that through ITAG we were able to secure funding for key NBN infrastructure just a couple of months ago, such as the more than $2 million announced last year to establish fibre-to-the-premises NBN in the tiny little alpine village of Harrietville as part of the Regional Connectivity Program. Those people are absolutely delighted. They've waited a long time. I urge the government to continue funding this program in the next budget—please, do that—to make sure we can continue and finish the job of connecting regional, rural and remote areas to the internet.

When the NBN isn't available, I want to see better satellite and mobile broadband solutions because my constituents are tired of hearing that because they live in a regional area they must accept the NBN may not make it to them. It's not good enough. We must make sure that, if it is to be satellite, it's absolutely top class. This issue is so important for the development of the regions. We can't let them fall behind the cities because they can't connect. It's absolutely critical to my electorate because it's a disaster prone area. I know I'm not the only one in that situation. The Black Summer bushfires, the Black Saturday bushfires 10 years before that, flooding, catastrophic storms and so on absolutely underscore the critical nature of this. This is not just for a Netflix connection, even though I'm the first to want one of those too! People rely on phone and internet services to keep themselves and their families safe. They just do. I know the minister knows that.

Throughout my career as a nurse, a midwife, an academic researcher and an MP, I have learnt that you don't stop until the job is done. That's my message to the government. The reforms in this bill will benefit consumers across Australia, but there is much more to be done before we can say with confidence that all Australians have access to reliable, affordable, fast internet.

I want to commend the member for Indi for her contribution. The member for Indi is correct. There is a common theme coming through from the speakers on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023, and that is regional and rural Australia. I'll add another element to that—the peri-urban regions as well. The members for Riverina and Indi have both paid compliments to the Minister for Communications, and I want to do that as well. Communications is such an important issue that should be bipartisan, and it's a credit to her that she is here today to listen.

I'll talk a little bit about what's happening in my community today. I've been inundated with calls and messages. I know it will mean a lot to them that the minister is here to listen, because it is such an important issue, particularly in emergencies. I will give the minister and her team fair warning that there is some correspondence coming following up our correspondence earlier this year looking at eligibility around the Dandenong Ranges. I know and appreciate the minister acknowledged the concerns about resilience in peri-urban areas and having to look at the boundaries of the funding schemes and how we can resolve these. We will be looking forward to working with the minister's office on how we can find funding for peri-urban areas. It's a continual frustration for my community in the Dandenong Ranges, the Upper Yarra and the Yarra Valley. It's a 40- to 50-minute drive with no traffic from the CBD, but anyone who visits knows it's not suburban. It is beautiful nature. It's farmland, agricultural land, mountains and challenging terrain. There are a lot of beautiful trees. There are a lot of tall trees, hundreds of feet high. The problem is that, when there's a storm, lots of trees fall down and we lose power. When we lose power in our community, we lose communications.

There are about 70,000 properties that are without power today across my community, including many community groups and many schools, including my own children's school. I want to pay tribute quickly to all those teachers that I know are teaching and doing the best they can today without any power at the schools. I say thank you to them and all the community members who are rallying around to make sure we can get through. Hopefully it will be only a couple of days or the next week or so without power and communications.

I also need to acknowledge that for many people today is actually going to be a tough day. It's going to bring back some trauma from the June storms of 2021. Anyone that lived in my area and community then was impacted by those storms. We were three weeks without power ourselves, but that was nothing. Many people in the Dandenong were three months without power and, 2½ years on, they haven't rebuilt yet. So I want to acknowledge that for those people, who might be okay physically and whose house might be okay, there will be a lot of trauma. It's important we rally around and support each other.

I want to share a couple of stories of my experience on that day but also from the CFA with the minister in the room so she can understand my passion and my community's passion about why we need strong, resilient emergency services. On that day, my wife and I were blocked in our house for about six to eight hours. Trees had come down at the front of our road, so we couldn't leave our house. The CFA came and checked on us within a couple of hours. We were really fortunate. The scary part about that experience is that we had quite a few trees around our house. No trees fell down on the house, so we were safe, but we had that conversation because, while phones are very convenient, when there's no internet and no phone reception, they're the most useless things in the world. Like many houses, we don't have a land line, so we had that conversation in that moment. If a tree had fallen on our house and my wife, our children or I had been hurt, we'd have had literally no ability to get out or to get help. The cars couldn't leave the driveway. It's a moment where you realise how vulnerable you are.

Bushfires are another significant threat in our community. I lived through Black Saturday. The 2019 bushfires live with us all. The CFA have said we were fortunate, in a way, that the storms were a static event. It was a significant event, but it wasn't a dynamic, fast-moving event. Communication was a significant issue, but it wasn't as significant as if it were a bushfire and we were trying to get updates on the spot. That's what we're talking about.

To highlight the challenges from an emergency services perspective: I spoke to Sarah, who's a friend of mine I have known for many years from the Sassafras-Ferny Creek CFA. During the storms, the only way they could communicate was by having her mobile phone placed on one little spot in their station. She was trying to text people. If she moved it even a centimetre, she said, it felt like it would drop in and out. That was how the CFA across the Dandenong ranges were trying to communicate with each other in the middle of the night with trees continuing to fall down. The Emerald SES had one of their vehicles crushed on that night. By luck, the two SES members weren't in the vehicle, but, again, if they had been and they'd been hit, they'd have had no ability to call for support or for help during that storm.

So I do want to pay tribute to all our volunteers. They don't get paid for this. They are volunteers that have left their families in the middle of the night, in pitch dark, to go help other people, to put their lives on the line. What we need to do as governments—and this is not a criticism of the government; this is bipartisan, because I acknowledge it is a challenging situation with the terrain and the topography. It's not about politics; it's about working in a bipartisan way to make them as safe as possible so that, when they risk their lives to protect our community, they have the communications they need to call for backup. I understand it's challenging, but the frustration my community has—and it's happened previously; it's not about this government—is about things like the Mobile Network Hardening Program. When the community is not able to get funding and is told it is a metropolitan area, it furthers that frustration for us. I am really grateful; I didn't expect the minister to be here, but I'm glad I could share those stories on behalf of my community. I'm looking forward to continuing to work with you on that.

We've got people that are lucky, but it's also about resilience and the reality that NBN and communications are essential services in emergencies but also day to day in our community. Belinda Young, from Mums of the Hills, has been an amazing advocate for this. You need to understand: if you live in the Dandenong Ranges or you live in the Upper Yarra or Yarra Valley, your neighbour is not 15 or 20 metres away; they are kilometres away. Even if they're next door, you've got a couple of kays up your driveway and a couple of kays around. You cannot just walk to your neighbours. Isolation, for mums in particular and young mothers at home with their children, is a significant issue. Being able to communicate with their friends on their phones through Facebook and social media is so crucial.

I want to share how Mums of the Hills started, because it's an important story that highlights how important communications are. Belinda founded Mums of the Hills because she'd moved to the area and her husband was at work. She was at home with their young son and she fell off a ladder and hurt herself. She was lucky that it wasn't significant. It was in that moment that she realised she didn't know anyone in the area that could support her. She literally couldn't walk, but even if she could, she wouldn't have been able to walk to the neighbours because she was living in the Dandenong. That's how she founded Mum of the Hills, as a Facebook group to support mums as they go through challenges and to build that connection. This is the only way, as I said, that these mums can initially communicate.

I didn't stay at home, but my wife reminds me often that, even if you can duck out, with a couple of young kids, it's not five minutes; there is a process you need to go through. This network of friends, through Facebook, is really important. They got through COVID as a community, and they continue to support each other through financial challenges and other challenges. I know Belinda has spent a lot of time advocating for communications as an essential service. I want to thank her for her advocacy and continue to support her. We need to do more in this regard.

It's not just the Dandenong but it's also our farming communities in the Yarra Valley that have challenges. Last year, as an example, a satellite went down and tractors across the country stopped working. Farmers weren't able to farm. It's a great example of the advantages of the digital economy and of the productivity gains and efficiencies we can get from technology and digital, but, if we're so reliant on it and if we've got no redundancy in our system, that creates risk. That's why we need to continue to make sure that, in our regional farming communities, NBN isn't a 'nice-to-have.' As the member for Indi said, we don't want a strong NBN just so we can watch Netflix. We need a strong connection to the internet so we can farm, so we can work from home if we need to and so kids can access schooling from home, as we saw through COVID. It's a way of being able to just live—and I don't want to use the term 'normally', but it's having the basic ability to communicate. If something happens, your neighbours are not two minutes away; they're a long way away.

I spoke about this in my first speech. I think we need to look at understanding the new technologies that are available. Satellite communication is moving at a rapid pace. It provides opportunities that can alleviate some of the geographical and topographical challenges that we face. I understand we're moving down an NBN path, and that is important, but I believe—whether it's NBN or private partnerships—we need to look at how we can maximise satellites to solve some of these challenges in hard-to-reach places, in areas like mine where there are valleys and mountains, where geography plays a huge part in the challenges we face. Satellites provide that opportunity.

We talk a lot about communications. For many people it is about better internet access for Netflix and for living their lives, working from home in the suburbs in Middle Australia. That's important. I don't denigrate that, but there's a reason that a lot of regional, rural and peri-urban members have spoken today. It's because this is one of the biggest challenges our communities face.

I'll finish by thanking the minister for being here to listen. I look forward to continuing to work with her on some bipartisan solutions for my community and many other communities as well.

First of all, I'd like to also acknowledge the member for Greenway, the Minister for Communications, for being here. It shows a professionalism that should be respected by so many others in the job they do. That's very encouraging. It's important because this is all part of our nation.

For me, one of the biggest fights I had was when I first arrived in parliament as a senator in 2005. It was the time of the sale of the remainder of the shares in Telstra. It was a big issue, and we had to, on behalf of those representing regional constituencies, try and bargain as best we could to get the best deal possible. I'll be frank. At the end, the whole range of the network guarantee, the customer service guarantee—all these things that we got, including $2 billion for things that we hadn't thought of at the time—was important, because we had to try and get regional people to a position. Basically, I held out my vote until we dealt with these things. At the start, we got nothing, then apparently they offered us $600 million. That came through, and then I was being pressured by my leader at the time to say yes. Then we got a billion dollars, and I still held out because I was in negotiations with other people telling me what funds we needed to actually do what we had to do. In the end, amongst all the guarantees we got, there was an extra $2 billion. I have to be frank; once we lost the election, my colleagues in the coalition voted with the Labor Party to get rid of the money. That was a huge disappointment, because it showed a lack of understanding of what exactly we were doing in regional areas.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to take you briefly to a conversation I just had in the other chamber. The member for Hotham and I had an exchange. I was saying how important it was to look after people in regional areas, especially with things such as roads, because we don't have bus services. Because we don't bus services, I said, 'A mother is unable to have a job because she spends the whole time trying to manage getting kids to school and back from school.' The interjection was: 'It's 2024. Don't you think guys should do it as well?' Yes, they could. But they've got to organise someone in the house to go out and have a job. Unfortunately, so often it's the reality that it falls on the mother to pick up this responsibility. It just does. What mothers want to do in regional areas is work from home; then they can have a job. But they can't work from home if they don't have any telecommunications or if it's unreliable. The employer just says: 'I'm sorry; it's unreliable. We can't do this. We can't have you as part of our office environment because we just can't rely on your internet connection.' Therefore, that person is relegated to home duties. They don't want to; they want to have a professional life like everybody else. I know this, with my wife being a journalist. She absolutely tunes me up about how things are going in telecommunications. I know there are quite a number of people on the other side probably thinking that's a very good reason not to give her telecommunications!

Let's go through some of the things that are important. I'd like to thank Elon Musk, because, before Elon Musk turned up with Starlink, having any satellite was really dodgy. They say 'go satellite'. Satellites just drop out. Things can happen in the house, like another kid turns on another program, and then your telecommunications drops out. This is just not viable. You'll probably note, colleagues, when I do mornings with Sunrise, that I've got this beautiful view. They say: 'Isn't that lovely? He's on the top of a hill.' There's a very good reason for that. It's the only place I get reception. That's why we go up the hill. We go up the hill to get reception. Sometimes we can get it from halfway up; sometimes we go to the top. We've got to have good reception for that link. Even that link's at 4G, not 5G.

One of our big worries about how we've gone from CDMA to 2G to 3G to 4G to 5G is that they're going to turn off 3G. For a lot of us, that's all we get. The No. 1 issue is that, if something goes wrong, you need to be able to make a phone call. We have 14 kilometres of dirt road—these are simple things. Just the other day, the road was out. A tree fell across it. No-one turns up with a chainsaw. Imagine if someone had a heart attack. Imagine if something had gone wrong and you can't get out. We're worried when they turn off 3G, Minister, that we're going to have 0G. We will have 5G come on board, but it's a much better service for a much smaller range. We've got to hold these people's feet to the fire and say: 'You don't turn off 3G till you can prove to the government that you've got 5G. We're going to go to areas that have got 3G, and, if they don't get 5G, we're going to say, "You can't turn off 3G until they've got a service."' They've got to have a service.

It is the No. 1 issue for our security and for anybody who's sick. If you're sick and you don't have a phone, you've got to move into town, and there are a whole range of other expenses. You've got to rent a house. You mightn't want to go into aged care, so you've got to rent a house. These things all come off telecommunications. We're finding this out lately. We're going higher and higher up the hill. As, apparently, the broadband gets better, we're going higher up the hill to try and get that connection. It's basic standard-of-living things.

If something goes wrong, you have to call the police. In the country, a lot of people own firearms, so, if something goes wrong, you have to call the police. If a problem arrives at the house, you can't drive out, because the problem is at your front door. You have to have that phone service to say, 'I have a problem here, and I need help in a big hurry.' If someone is home alone and has a stroke, a heart attack, appendicitis or something else go wrong, they need a phone service, otherwise they're in trouble. We do have instances, tragically, where people die because they can't call anybody. If you just work phone services on profitability, you will have areas that have a great standard of living and other areas that have poor people made poorer because they don't have any service at all. You need to hold their foot to the fire.

I want to give another example, Minister. A lot of these mobile phone towers are connected with electricity. You've just seen what happens when the electricity goes out. When it goes out, all your mobile phone towers go out. We had a meeting about this in a place called Nowendoc which almost filled the hall. These things are really important in local areas. They said: 'On our farms, if a pump goes out or if a house goes out, we have what's called a 'Murphy switch' on a generator. The generator kicks in straightaway and the power is restored. We understand that, at times, the power goes out. We rig things up so we can deal with it. For some unknown reason, mobile phone towers don't have that. We want someone to say to them, "We want you to give us assurity that, if the power goes out, the mobile phone tower keeps going." They trip and then you can have three or four go out, and then you have no mobile reception.' These people say: 'We will help you out, if you want. We can rig up the generator and make sure it's there. As soon as the power goes out, it will turn the switch and on it will go.' Sometimes you almost get a sense of belligerence. It gets put in the too-hard basket. They can't quite get there. They're not listening to these people and what they say. They need that tower going.

Minister, I understand the parochialism about mobile phone coverage, but it's really important that within your department you say: 'Get back to me. We need a basic service. I want you to tell me where on the map that basic service isn't.' That basic service might also be in the peri-urban areas of a major capital, where they just don't have mobile phone service. I've found that. We all know that when you drive along and go over a certain ridge there will be no phone service, and then you have it back later. Find out where those areas are and then say, 'Let's have a program to do this,' and hold them to the fire. Say, 'If you're going to get cash from the government, I want something back in return: your guarantee on exactly what you're going to do for us.'

Another thing is that they're very parochial—and I'm sure you understand—about roaming. They don't like roaming, because they like monopolies. There has to be a discussion that, even if it's not global, we need to have roaming in situ in certain areas of critical need. You can charge them a premium for using a tower, but you've got to allow them to use the tower. If someone goes from the city, they're on Optus and they roll their car where I live, Danglemah: forget it; there's no service. But if you go to other places, roll your car and you're on Telstra: no service. We have to say that in situ in certain areas, in critical areas, part of the deal is that you have to allow roaming. It's a safety thing. A telecommunications network that only works in Sydney isn't effective; it's effective when it works across the nation.

Work from home is something so many women want to do. That is the reality in regional areas. Once your kid goes to school, you are working at home or you're not working. For Zoom meetings, Teams meetings and all these types of meetings, they need the bandwidth to stay on that meeting, otherwise people don't take them seriously.

In our areas we have farm machinery. Farm machinery these days is completely different to the farm machinery of the past. It works with a 100 per cent connection to places like Detroit. If you're on a John Deere, your tractor is talking to Detroit. Why? If you have a bearing or heat issue or something else going wrong, you have to turn the engine off straightaway, because otherwise the problem goes from a $3,000 problem to a $50,000 problem. The message comes back to you to switch it off—obviously it's not a person ringing you; you get a message to immediately turn it off. That's how farming works now, that's the level it's at. For it to be at that level, you need the telecommunications capacity for you to buy that infrastructure from Detroit—and soon it will be from India and all over the place—because that's how it works these days. You've got to be able to do that.

Also, for us—I live in the hills—there's occupational health and safety. If people go out, they've got to be contactable if something goes wrong. If they come off a horse; if they're working with machinery and something goes wrong; or if they roll a car, a tractor or a truck, we've got to know that something has gone wrong. If they haven't got telecommunications, that is a big problem. Rather than saying, 'We just can't do it,' we've got to think around the corners. How can we deliver this to that area? We have microcells, and that's worked with microcells. The big mobile phone towers can be hellishly expensive, but you can get microcells that at least partly deal with the issue in certain areas. I'm thinking of Upper Horton. I'm thinking of out the back of Scone and at Moonan Flat. We've got microcells in these areas, so at least the people in the village, including elderly people, have got the capacity and the security.

Other things are coming our way. Artificial intelligence is coming our way, and this is going to absolutely exponentially change the relevance of telecommunications. It's going to go through the roof. Therefore, it's going to exponentially change the disconnection of people who can't be on board with it. If you don't have a connection with it, you're going to be light years away.

We've also got to acknowledge, with artificial intelligence coming forward, that a lot of people today have clerical jobs, and, just like factories knocked out weavers, this will knock out clerical jobs; they'll go. A computer will be able to do it better than you, and it will be vastly cheaper. So we're going to need a telecommunications system to get these people who will be out of work back into work. You're going to see some massive changes. Here's a classic one, tangential to this: why do we need office blocks if we don't have office workers in them? I'm an accountant. You're starting to get impairments on those assets right now. People are starting to ask the question, 'Why do we need that—because these people will have to find a different job.' We can be Luddites and think, 'We'll just smash the telecommunications system; we'll smash AI,' but you won't.

So we've got to have a telecommunications system that reaches over and says: 'This is coming our way; how do we make sure these people are still employed? How do they work?' What are their jobs in this new era of artificial intelligence? What is artificial intelligence going to do? What are the jobs that our kids and grandkids—and you—are going to do when this event arises? And it's arriving right now. So I thank you very much for that.

The final thing I think we need to check in on is adversaries, especially countries. We know that people are hacking into our systems. They could create such disruption—like the communist People's Republic of China, the Iranians and the Russians. If they take down our system, if we don't have proper security there, they can have half the battle won before they do anything else. The first event in a conflict will not be you hearing bombs dropping out of the sky; it'll be in the cyber world, all of a sudden. The only thing that's going to drop out is your telecommunications system, taking out the banking system, taking out everything with it, creating absolute chaos on the ground before you can do anything.

So we have to make sure our telecommunications system is bulletproof against that. Unless you've got the investment—I know we invested $10 billion and you're investing in it. We're all doing it because, on national security, there should be very little differentiation between parties. We'll all go down the same toilet if it comes unstuck. I ask you to make sure we have a strong line of sight there. Go to the National Security Committee and insist that they prove to you that they've got it all under control.

I appreciate all the contributions that have been made today that have been very insightful and instructive, which I will continue to follow up with individual members. There are a number of initiatives on foot that a number of members did raise on specific issues. I won't go into the detail of all them, but I'm grateful to the member for New England for highlighting the issue of roaming. I'll just highlight that temporary disaster roaming was recently found by the ACCC to be technically feasible, and it's something that we are pursuing now within the department. I welcome the cooperation that has been shown by the mobile carriers to date. But I can assure the member that this is a very high priority within the portfolio, and I completely agree with him on the need for that to be realised.

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will deliver improved safeguards for Australian consumers when they access broadband and voice services. It does this through a number of measures. First, the bill refines and improves the statutory infrastructure provider, or SIP, regime. Key measures that will benefit consumers include introducing the power for the minister to require SIPs to pay compensation where they do not meet a standard or rule; allowing the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to resolve complaints about SIP connections; and providing clearer rules for SIPs when they exit areas or when premises in their areas begin to be occupied.

Second, the bill provides powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to issue remedial notices to developers who do not install functional fibre ready facilities, such as pit and pipe, in developments. Third, the bill allows the ACMA to identify carriers and carriage service providers in public reports on their performance. This will improve transparency and accountability. Fourth, the bill allows universal service providers to be determined in relation to specific areas of Australia. This could, for example, be helpful if Norfolk Island is fully integrated into the Australian telecommunications regulatory framework. Finally, the bill makes some technical amendments to legislation, including to clarify the powers of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to issue infringement notices and to clarify the maximum penalties that should apply for breaches of carrier separation rules and the anti-avoidance measures relating to the Regional Broadband Scheme.

I thank all members for their participation in the debate on this legislation that will deliver better outcomes for people in Australia accessing essential telecommunications services.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

I rise to make my contribution on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. Now more than ever, we recognise the importance of a strong vocational education and training system. Work shortages across the country have stalled or delayed vital infrastructure and housing, seeing our hospital, aged-care and childcare systems under pressure and seeing other vital sectors struggle across the economy. These have only been exacerbated by the former government's mismanagement of or lack of direction in the VET sector. Under the previous government, apprenticeship rates declined from 220,000 in 2014 to 135,000 in 2019, only increasing after the COVID era wage subsidy support. The emergency support was not sustainable and was to be reduced back to pre-COVID levels. As a result of the Albanese government's investment in apprenticeships and training, trade commencements were up almost 20 per cent in our government's first year compared to June 2019. In my community, the number of those in training increased from 1,415 people in June 2021 to 1,750 people in June 2023.

Now more than ever, the Australian government must ensure Australians and employers have access to a good-quality VET sector that they can trust. It is unfortunate, however, that we know that, whilst they are in the minority, there are registered training organisations out there that have exploited students and undermined the reputation of the sector. The Albanese government is committed to protecting students and ensuring the RTOs in our VET sector can be trusted to continue to provide training to Australians.

The reports of several reviews throughout the years have highlighted concerns with the VET sector, including the recent Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system, also known as the Nixon review; the 2018 All eyes on quality: Review of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, the Braithwaite review; as well as 'Quality and integritythe quest for sustainable growth':interim report into international education by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. All of these have provided extensive insights from different perspectives into the VET system and provided recommendations as to how we can better the system.

This bill is the Albanese government's first tranche of legislation to implement the integrity measures needed to elevate the status of our VET sector and target that minority of dodgy RTOs. It does this by ensuring that the national VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, has the powers it needs to properly police the sector and enforce new penalties established in this legislation.

Under the new rules set out in the legislation, RTOs who have not delivered any training and/or assessments in 12 consecutive months will be automatically deregistered, ensuring that RTOs that are legitimate and committed to delivering training remain in the sector. However, the regulator, to ensure fairness, can grant an extension of a maximum of 12 months, should an RTO demonstrate that it has legitimate reasons as to why it cannot provide training and/or assessment and that these reasons are outside of its control. Extension decisions will be subject to internal and external merit reviews, via the AAT or the proposed Administrative Review Tribunal, ensuring that there is fairness and there are avenues of review for these RTOs.

The bill will strengthen the registration requirement for RTOs, to prevent them from altering the scope of their registration. RTOs will be unable to change the list of the courses they are registered to deliver for two years from registration, in line with recommendations of the Braithwaite review. RTOs will be required to demonstrate they are able to provide high-quality training in the areas that they were originally approved for. If an RTO cannot adequately provide the courses it was originally approved for, how can it then be trusted to expand its offerings or deliver the quality training that students should, rightly, expect? The two-year period allows ASQA to monitor and assess the operations of an RTO before being able to expand their course offerings.

These are reasonable changes that will stop providers that are failing to deliver on proper training outcomes from expanding or shifting their business to other markets. It's simple. In order to expand, you must demonstrate that you are committed to providing quality education to the students that you already have, in the segment of the market you are operating in.

Additional changes that will be made to the regulator's powers relate to increased flexibility during the registration process. The regulator will be able to determine how it prioritises, considers and makes decisions, allowing for it to apply greater scrutiny to complex applications but also to make decisions more efficiently on non-complex applications. It will also be able to take into consideration the broader labour market and those areas that are experiencing training shortages or where there is greater community need for certain skills. The minister, in consultation with the regulator, will be, with the agreement of the Skills and Workforce Ministerial Council, empowered to determine a period of time in which the regulator will not be required to, or must not, accept or process applications. This can be applied broadly or in relation to specific classes of application in instances where the regulator has identified applications that pose a risk to the integrity of the sector. This measure is to ensure that the regulator can manage the VET market and address risks as they arise.

ASQA will also be given additional time in which to conduct an internal review of a decision, should a review application be made by the RTO. The period will increase from 90 to 120 days, to allow the regulator additional time to assess decisions that are complex or require further examination. While the period will be increased, most reviews are still expected to be completed well within the 90-day period.

Expanding the powers of the regulator is a key aspect of ensuring a more robust and quality VET sector, but it's not the only measure that will be introduced with this bill. Enforcement is important, and so are the penalties for engaging in non-genuine and dodgy behaviour. The bill will apply tougher penalties and introduce new provisions to expand and clarify prohibited behaviour that is false and misleading, including false and misleading claims in advertisements, publishing false and misleading descriptions or images of RTO facilities or training locations, falsely claiming an RTO has associations with or endorsements from reputable institutions, fabricating testimonials and misleading potential students to believe that the RTO offers student services that it doesn't deliver. These are just a few examples of prohibited conduct.

The bill will also increase the penalty units for certain provisions. Penalties for bad behaviour should not be seen as a cost of doing business. There should be a clear deterrent for bad behaviour, and punishment, should an RTO engage in these bad practices. Maximum penalties for a breach of such an offence or civil penalty provision will increase fivefold. Penalties will now range from $46,950 to $939,000, increasing from the current range of $9,390 to $187,800. RTOs that encourage disingenuous behaviour and fail to provide quality education to their students should be properly penalised. It has caused constituents in my community great grief and often large debt. These amendments will ensure that those RTOs are penalised.

Additional measures in this bill will assist in more efficient and effective regulation of the VET sector, aligning regulation requirements with the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and aligning internal review processes with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011. The Albanese government understands the importance of the VET sector. That's why we signed the $30 billion National Skills Agreement, the first in a decade, and it's why we've invested $414 million for a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE places in vocational education courses from January this year. No matter where a student trains, they have to be assured that our government is committed to them receiving the quality education they deserve. This bill is the first step in realising that commitment. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. I am a firm believer in the positive power of education. After school, I went and worked on a farm for a while and then was able to go and complete a Bachelor of Applied Science and Agriculture degree at a university which had a regional campus very close to the place where I was living. Later on, when I wanted to do an MBA, that was available in a regional location too. So university was my pathway to education, but I have a lot of mates in my electorate who went down the apprenticeship and vocational education route, and they have done very well. Some of them went straight out of school and some of them went back to it later on. The local firms, building companies and manufacturers, such as Furphy, have a strong record of shepherding apprentices through, with the assistance of vocational education providers such as GOTAFE in my area.

This bill will amend the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act to give the National VET Regulator stronger powers. It will provide for automatic lapsing of regulated training organisations' registration with the Australian Skills and Quality Agency where the provider has not delivered training or assessments for 12 consecutive months from 1 January 2023. Further, it will prevent RTOs from changing the courses they are registered to deliver to students in the first two years of registration. A new legislative instrument will allow the minister to pause the ASQA registration either for a specific class of applicants or for all applicants. It's not a power we are totally opposed to, but it's a power we think needs greater transparency. The coalition will put forward several amendments to improve that and also restrict the amount of time a pause can be put in force. Any extension would then require further engagement with the ministerial council. We don't want these powers to be used to manipulate the market and drive students to preferred course providers—those provided by the government. This government has a track record of putting government run training providers first, instead of students and their outcomes.

Finally, the bill increases the civil penalties for false and misleading representations by operators. We are supportive of that. We don't want junk VET courses. We've seen junk VET courses out there before. I must say, when Labor were last in government they demonstrated a lack of skill when it came to skills training. Apprenticeship numbers plummeted. When Labor left office, the apprentice and trainee numbers had fallen by 22 per cent.

Then there was the disaster of VET FEE-HELP. This scheme sent the reputation of the Australian skills system to rock bottom. There are much better examples around the world that I'll talk about later. These poor Australians were loaded up with debt for doing courses that were never going to land them a job. The scheme, established by the Labor government in 2008 and expanded in 2012, suffered systemic rorting. Students who wanted nothing more than to improve their knowledge and skills were at the mercy of dodgy providers exploiting loose rules and charging students substantial fees for training they never undertook or benefited from.

I'll give an anecdote. At the time, I was working in a high-tech agricultural firm—I won't mention any names. This high-tech agricultural firm was provided with government funded sales training. This was in the Rudd-Gillard years. We were all sitting around there. This was very high-tech stuff. The sales we had involved explaining the benefits of certain agricultural technology to customers. We had this guy from a sales company that got taxpayer funds come in and talk to us. It was basically a lesson on how to be a telemarketer: 'These are the soothsaying words you should use for a potential customer. "That's the easiest part of my day." "Can I help you with this?" "Would you like fries with that?"' It wasn't really what we were doing. Yet there was no departmental or government oversight to say, 'This is an RTO that should not get government funding to do what they're doing.' The people from the company didn't benefit from that. The RTO got paid, but they weren't delivering something of substantial benefit to the Australian economy. We don't want to see that happen again. I think that in the Rudd-Gillard years things got a bit lost, taxpayers' money was taken for granted and things like that were happening. We don't want to see that again.

I do worry that we are going to have a few problems in the future. Trade apprentices in training hit record highs in the final months of the coalition government. As of June 2022, there were 429,000 apprentices and trainees in training, 20 per cent more than at the same time in 2021. Things had been improving. But, after just one year of the new government, the number has now fallen to 377,645. I'm worried about that because we need more apprentices. In my electorate of Nicholls, the drop in apprentices and trainees under this government is 11.75 per cent. My businesses are struggling to find workers. We need to pump-prime the economy with skilled, trained workers—not with junk VET degrees, diplomas and qualifications but with real skills training.

I identified this as an issue because it has been an issue for a long time. It's not just the current government's fault, although things seem to be getting worse. I identified this as an issue in my electorate a number of years ago, and, before coming to this place, I was awarded a Churchill Fellowship to study the European approach to vocational education and training and the encouragement of young people in schools to undertake vocational education and training so that they could then land a productive job in the workforce. Because of COVID, I couldn't do it straightaway, so I ended up taking some time during the midwinter break to go to the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and Finland to look at how they do vocational education and training.

One of the things that was most stark for me was, firstly, the cultural difference. Here, we have a bit of a 'if you're a smart kid, you go to uni, and everyone else goes and gets an apprenticeship' situation. In Germany, Sweden and Finland particularly, university education and vocational education are held in the same esteem. I think that's something that we all should be working towards, because the students who graduate from the vocational education and training systems are as important, if not more important, to our economy—notwithstanding all the people, whom I much respect, who've got degrees in law or engineering. They're very important, but these electricians, these plumbers, these people with these trades and vocational education are so important to our economy.

I think we've all got work to do to make sure that, when schools talk to young people about careers, we've got vocational education and training and university on the same level. That's something I saw in Germany and Finland. When I was in Germany I was in Stuttgart and I went to Mercedes-Benz. Mercedes-Benz go into schools in the Stuttgart and the towns around there. They try to talk to kids in their version of our years 7 and 8, trying to find the kids who've got an aptitude for mechanics and engineering and also the ones who have a bit of a future focus. That's IT. They try to encourage these kids to consider a career at Mercedes-Benz. The German system means that, if that kid says, 'Yes, a career at Mercedes-Benz sounds good to me,' they go to Mercedes-Benz and do what's called dual vocational education and training. They'll probably spend three days a week at Mercedes. I saw these young people working away. They'll spend either two or three days a week at a vocational education and training school or a tech school.

These tech schools in Germany look a lot different from our TAFE schools. They're a lot more high tech, and the companies and the tech schools are working together to make sure that what the kids are learning both practically but also in the theory around, say, mechatronics or electronic engineering is completely relevant to what's going on with Mercedes-Benz's strategic direction. That works really well. When I come back to Australia, I don't see it working as well.

In this discussion, this debate that we're having over vocational education and training, I think we all want the same outcomes. We want high-tech industries with kids coming out of school and finding apprenticeships. We want those apprenticeships and training systems to be completely relevant to what's going on out there in the world of industry. We want those kids to turn into very-high-skilled technicians in industry and we want them to drive the Australian economy forward.

So here's an opportunity. We'll have a bit of a crack at each other over what we did and what you are doing, and I think that's healthy. That's part of the debate. But we want the same outcome, which is a high-tech workforce. I went over and had a look at it. I single out Germany and Finland because that's where I saw an approach that is different from us but I think is working better. I understand that there are cultural differences between, for example, Finland and Australia, but, to give you an example of a place that is perhaps more culturally aligned with us: the United Kingdom is moving in this direction too. They're realising that university is not the be-all and end-all. They're realising that they need to improve the vocational education and training systems. We talk a lot about a green energy or low-emissions-energy future. It's interesting that, when I was in Sweden, they were talking about a future powered by renewables. Now they're talking about a low-emissions future because they've realised that they need to ramp up their nuclear industry to get to where they want to get with their emissions reduction, and I think that's the conversation we've got to have. The UK have decided that they've got to ramp up nuclear as well. The skills and the technicians required to do that mean they need to lift the game from what they had in vocational education and training and perhaps look more at what Finland and Germany are doing. I pose the question: are we training the employees of the future? I think it's a question we've all got to ask ourselves. When Labor's in government or the coalition's in government, we've all got to strive towards making sure that our vocational education and training system is fit for purpose and that that money's not being wasted on RTOs that are just trying to get a bit of government money to go and give some training that doesn't mean anything or on people that are trying to exploit students, who might get some qualifications that are never going to help them land a job. Instead, we need to focus in on what we really need as an economy. Sure, we need lawyers—I've just seen another one come into the room, a great contributor as well—but vocational education and training is critical to our country's future.

I don't think we're doing it as well as we need to. I think we need to be in schools, saying: 'Apprenticeships are just as good, and you can earn just as much if you're a good operator. Here's the pathway for you with a really good RTO that's going to work with industry to deliver relevant training and skills.' That is a partnership. The partnership is between the training organisations, government and industry. I've seen it work well overseas. In small patches, I've seen it work well here in Australia, but I think we've got a long way to go. My commitment, while I've got some time in this place, is to work constructively with all members to see if we can get this one right.

In my electorate of Corangamite, TAFE is more than good; it's world class. Gordon TAFE serves as a cornerstone of opportunity, a catalyst for personal growth, and testament to the power of VET education to shape a brighter future for the students in my region. Our government recognises this, and we also recognise that we need to do much to help our students. That's why I stand to support the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. This bill is about safeguarding the integrity of the sector. This bill is a significant step towards ensuring the integrity and excellence of our VET sector. This landmark legislation embodies our government's deep commitment to enhancing the regulatory framework governing the VET sector, ensuring that it remains a beacon of quality and opportunity. Instances of noncompliance, fraud and exploitation have cast a shadow over this sector, eroding public trust and undermining the hard-earned achievements of students, educators and industry stakeholders.

It is incumbent upon us to confront these challenges head on to safeguard the integrity of this very vital sector and uphold its reputation as a bastion of quality education and training. Apprentice carpenter Trey McAuley is just one local success story that inspires apprentices and trainees to aim for the stars. Trey's apprenticeship and training led to an opportunity to represent Australia in the 47th WorldSkills International Championships in Lyon, France this year. After his success at the national championships in Melbourne in August, he really is the best in his field. Trey said:

I'm the sole carpentry apprentice in the training squad, so I'm determined to prove myself and represent Australia in my trade … I love my job, and to think it started with a regional competition at The Gordon and led me to where I am now is exciting … I'm grateful for the support surrounding me. I love being a carpenter and having this extra opportunity through trade school. My employer is another reason why working in the trade industry has been a great career choice. I'm committed to giving it my best.

The Albanese government, like the Whitlam government before it, understands the value of education for the public good. Today, the Albanese government is materially reforming our vocation education and training, VET, sector. We're rebuilding a sector wilfully neglected by the previous government, because we understand a strong VET sector is critical. This is why we're committed to building a strong, resilient and dynamic skills and training sector.

The Albanese government understands that we must support quality TAFEs and boost the skilled workforce, and, through a genuine partnership with our state and territory counterparts, our fee-free TAFE program is doing just that. It will be the flagship initiative to help support key industries experiencing skill shortages. It's focused on areas of emerging growth while providing access to priority cohorts, including the most vulnerable in our communities. The numbers speak for themselves. In the first six months we exceeded our target of 180,000 enrolments, with almost 215,000 Australians enrolling in a fee-free TAFE course. That's 215,000 people accessing high-quality training in areas where we need skilled workers. Demographic data also shows that fee-free TAFE is making inroads in supporting disadvantaged and in-need Australians, with enrolments including 50,849 jobseekers, 15,269 people with disability and 6,845 First Nations Australians. And we're not stopping there; we're providing funding for a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE places, starting now.

Put simply, the opportunities of fee-free study can change lives and improve our economy. The Albanese government recognises this. However, among the countless success stories, we can't ignore the scams that threaten the integrity and value of the sector. After many years of inaction, our government is responding to the community's call for change. This bill will empower the Australian Skills Quality Authority, who are tasked with overseeing the registration and quality assurance of VET providers. By providing the skills authority with enhanced powers and resources, we seek to strengthen its capacity to identify and address instances of non-compliant, fraudulent behaviour and substandard practices within the sector.

A cornerstone of this bill is the introduction of robust measures aimed at combating the proliferation of nongenuine or unscrupulous registered training organisations—RTOs—that exploit regulatory loopholes for personal gain. Through targeted amendments to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, we aim to bolster ASQA's authority to take swift and decisive action against RTOs engaging in fraudulent activity, ensuring those who seek to undermine the integrity of this sector are held accountable for their actions.

Furthermore, the bill seeks to enhance the transparency and accountability of RTOs by introducing measures to prevent the abuse of regulation status and the misrepresentation of educational offerings. By imposing stricter penalties for breaches of regulatory requirements and expanding ASQA's powers to conduct internal reviews of decisions, we aim to create a regulatory environment where compliance is not just an option but a fundamental requirement for participation in the VET sector.

In addition to these enforcement measures, the bill includes provisions aimed at strengthening the integrity of the VET sector's registration process. By introducing safeguards to prevent the rapid expansion of newly registered RTOs and imposing restrictions on the addition of new courses to their scope of VET registration, we seek to ensure that providers demonstrate a genuine commitment to quality education and training before being granted broader accreditation.

Moreover, the bill incorporates recommendations from various reviews, including the Nixon review and the Braithwaite review, which highlighted the need for targeted reforms to address integrity and equality issues within the VET sector. By drawing upon the insights and recommendations of these reviews, we will develop a comprehensive legislative framework that reflects the evolving needs and challenges facing the sector.

The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024 represents a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to strengthen the integrity and quality of Australia's VET sector. By empowering ASQA, imposing tougher penalties and enhancing regulatory efficiency, we lay the groundwork for a future where every individual has access to high-quality vocational education and training opportunities, equipping them with the skills we need to succeed in an increasingly competitive global landscape.

As we delve deeper into the provisions of the bill, it becomes evident that our focus is on equipping ASQA with the necessary tools to address integrity issues within the VET sector effectively. One of the fundamental aspects of this bill is the reinforcement of ASQA's enforcement powers. The proposed amendments enable ASQA to take swift and decisive action against non-genuine or unscrupulous RTOs that undermine the integrity of the sector. The bill introduces measures to prevent the abuse of registration status by dormant RTOs that fail to deliver training and/or assessment for an extended period. This provision addresses the inherent risk associated with RTOs that maintain their registration purely for onselling qualifications without fulfilling their educational obligations. Automatic lapsing of registration after 12 months of inactivity serves as a strong deterrent against such practices while ensuring procedural fairness through provisions for legitimate extensions under exceptional circumstances.

Additionally, the bill imposes restrictions on newly registered RTOs, prohibiting them from expanding their course offerings within the first two years of registration. This measure aims to mitigate quality risk associated with rapid expansion and provides ASQA with an opportunity to assess the operational integrity of new entrants before granting them broader accreditation. By focusing on the quality of education and training delivery from the outset, we are laying the foundation for a stronger and better VET sector. Furthermore, the bill incorporates recommendations from various reviews that I've spoken about: the Nixon and Braithwaite reviews. We've highlighted the need for targeted reforms to enhance the integrity and quality of the VET sector. Drawing upon these insights and recommendations, we will develop a fantastic framework.

I'd like to give a shout-out to Gordon TAFE. It is such an amazing organisation. It started in the 19th century, and it began because there was such a need for skills growth in our growing economy. Now we are facing the same need for skills development so we have a skilled workforce that can meet the needs of Australia and take us into the future as a really strong economy. To do that, we need to empower TAFE to do this job well. That means having the right set of regulations to make sure that reputable TAFES are highly regarded and equip young people to do well. I'd like to give a shout-out to the TAFE because they have about 13,000 students currently, and when they started in the 19th century, I think they first started with 10 students. They've come a long way, and they do an amazing job.

In closing, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024 represents a significant step forward in our collective effort to strengthen the integrity and quality of Australia's VET sector. By empowering ASQA, imposing tougher penalties and enhancing regulatory efficiency, we do lay the groundwork for a future where every individual has access to high-quality vocational education. We must ensure that this continues. We think about Whitlam and the fact that he sought to significantly widen educational opportunities for all Australians and reform post-school training. The Albanese government is continuing this legacy and ensuring that in the future our young people will be able to choose to go to university or to go to TAFE. They will be able to find the skills that will provide them with rewarding work, and, very importantly, will equip Australia with the skilled workforce we need for the future. I commend the bill.

I rise to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. Vocational education and training is an integral part of the Australian workforce. Apprenticeships and traineeships are fuelling our economy to meet changing demands.

I'm pleased to see that the government is taking action to reform and strengthen the quality and integrity of the VET sector. I understand that a review was conducted in January 2018, known as the Braithwaite review of the NVETR Act, with recommendations for change. The review also revealed that students have shared their VET experience as being disappointing and demoralising, with students accumulating significant debt for courses that, ultimately, they did not complete. More concerningly, the report also revealed experiences of abuse and exploitation. This should have set off alarm bells for the government to consider taking immediate action to address the systemic issues. It has been six years since the review, and we now have a bill to adopt some of the recommended changes. I have to ask the government why it took so long.

Fowler has a significant number of students engaging in the VET sector, ranging from hospitality and early childhood to aged care. Approximately 12 per cent of employed people aged 15 and over are currently working in the trade or technician sector. With manufacturing and construction being the largest employers in Fowler, offering our people opportunities to develop skills in these industries is critical. I am committed to ensuring that the government continue to propose measures that not only support the VET sector but also uplift and create better access and opportunity for those engaging in the sector.

I have been vocal about supporting the VET sector in the past year, such as by proposing the reversal of indexation on the trade support loans, which were later rebranded as Australian apprenticeship support loans, back to the 2022 rate of 3.9 per cent. Although it was known as an interest-free loan, it was hard to reconcile this belief when loans were still indexed according to CPI. My plea to the government for this relief was to give more students hope to enter the trades industry without the fear of crippling debt. I am still of the view that the government must address this issue of indexation at a time of cost-of-living crisis for my constituents in Fowler and across Western Sydney. I've spoken often in this House of the struggles and pains of my constituents in Fowler. Due to the low-income status of many families, they are struggling to put food on the table while coming to terms with the soaring costs of electricity, fuel, rent, food and insurance, as well as the general cost of living.

For a sector that is the backbone of the Australian workforce and the future of many young hopefuls, I am disappointed it has taken us this long to holistically review the flaws of the VET sector. The proposed bill is a move by the government to crack down on dodgy registered training organisations, who are engaging in borderline criminal behaviour within the VET sector. I note that the bill makes several amendments to improve the integrity of the vocational education sector and to ensure that only those registered training organisations that demonstrate a genuine commitment to training and education are able to operate. ASQA is to be provided with more discretion in managing and deciding on RTO applications. I welcome these efforts to clean up the VET sector. However, it is important that the government also has mechanisms in place to prevent the misuse of power. Will there be internal guidelines for ASQA to ensure that regulatory duties are in line?

While we focus on the unscrupulous registered training organisations, we also need to ensure that we are relieving the burden on those RTOs that are doing the right thing—that they are not overburdened in dealing with regulations that are constantly changing. Many RTOs that I have spoken to find it difficult to continuously keep up to date with the course and skill set requirements, and there is immense pressure on trainers, assessors and people working in the sector to constantly retrain, which adds burden, cost and time to the sector.

I know that the government invested $37.8 million to support the establishment of the integrity unit within ASQA to upgrade systems and create a tip-off line for the misconduct of RTOs. This is not an insignificant sum. While it is important that systems are constantly up to date, I would like to know whether the funding was also utilised to improve the delivery of VET courses and to support students.

VET is an essential pathway to upskill and re-skill Australia's workforce. As the aged-care and disability-care sector continues to grow, and as we address the shortages in the education sector and in others, we know that VET will play an important role in preparing our workforce to meet these challenges.

I agree that we need regulators in the field of VET that demonstrate a genuine commitment to providing quality education and training. I would like to highlight that as legislators we need to ensure we get the balance right. What are the key benchmarks we are categorising for quality and are we providing too many hurdles to the VET providers that are doing the right thing?

I support the amendment to the bill that expands and strengthens the offence and civil penalty provisions regarding false and misleading representations made by an RTO, offering greater protection for students. This is even more important when the students, like many of those in my community of Fowler, are from a migrant or refugee background and are more vulnerable to being exploited by false and misleading claims made by RTOs. I think we can all agree this is an important provision to include in the legislation. I also agree with the amendment that automatically lapses an RTO's registration when it does not deliver training for a period of 12 consecutive months, as there is also the ability for the RTO to request an extension and provide an explanation as to the reason.

I note that this amendment will be the first piece of legislation among others which are set to reform and elevate the status of VET and TAFE in Australia. I ask the government to ensure that there is constructive consultation with the sector to ensure the experiences of those at the coalface are considered in providing legislation to best meet the needs of both RTOs and students. I acknowledge that this is a step forward. However, there are many things amiss with the VET sector beyond regulatory issues. Vocational education and training is an essential element we must get right to prepare Australia's workforce to drive our economy forward.

In 2023, I conducted a consultation with community stakeholders about the VET sector to understand the key issues that affect students and providers. The emerging theme from the consultation was that there is a lack of support for students and VET teachers due to the constant changes to VET courses as well as workforce shortages. Following my community consultation, I now call on the government to take the following action as the next tranche of reform.

Firstly, implement measures to maintain the course and skill-set requirements for at least three years. A stakeholder has shared that they are dissatisfied that government bodies are constantly changing the course and skill-set requirements. This adds immense pressure to keep up and streamline compliance. In particular, a stakeholder has said the following: 'What has changed in hospitality so much that there is a constant need to send VET teachers to training annually?' It was also shared that VET teachers are often sent to training for at least five to 15 days, which takes them away from school and their ability to connect with their students. Accordingly, students feel like they are not adequately supported whilst undertaking their VET courses.

Secondly, provide VET teachers with wider support within schools. VET teachers have shared with me the struggles of having to constantly upskill and attend training, as I have mentioned above. They are also met with administrative burdens to upload evidence for each student to be assessed. This may also produce burnout and potentially affect how they deliver the courses to students. VET teachers feel like they are being pulled in multiple directions and cannot keep up. While I can appreciate that this may be a matter for state governments to consider, it would be worthwhile to explore conversations about allocating funding to give VET teachers support with student engagement.

Thirdly, implement measures to support students engaging in the VET sector. The Braithwaite review has described some students' VET journeys as being 'demoralising'. I ask the government to consult and engage with providers so that the delivery of VET courses can be enhanced and made meaningful to reduce the number of students discontinuing their courses. Students need more confidence from the government that they can pursue VET courses. In conclusion, I commend the bill to the House.

It is an amazing pleasure to speak on the importance of this bill before the House, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. A good education is a ticket to a good life and a good wage. My electorate knows how passionate I am about education. One of the things I'd also highlight is that I agree with some but not all of the comments of the member for Nicholls. Having a look at our society and seeing the importance of university education and vocational education, I think it's important that we place an emphasis on both of these types of education. Particularly in WA there can be comparable wages and comparable job security, and I think that something we need to highlight is the importance of apprenticeships and traineeships in our broader economy.

In the electorate of Swan I'm very lucky because there are a range of registered training providers that provide excellent services. I have two thriving TAFEs. South Metropolitan TAFE has two campuses, Bentley and Carlisle, and they provide amazing opportunities for our community, for young people and adults looking to start or change their careers.

Bentley campus, on Hayman Road, is one of the largest TAFE campuses. It's conveniently located across the road from Curtin University and co-located with the Bentley business precinct, known as Tech Park. It has brilliant facilities that are open to the public, such as the award-winning Bentley Pines Training Restaurant—I'm very lucky my niece has trained to become a pastry chef there! It's a live and interactive training environment for our students preparing for work in the hospitality industry. Hospitality and cookery students serve and prepare food in the restaurant and showcase their skills in planning a menu; budgeting and making purchases; and preparing and serving food and drinks to members of the public. Events students provide menu presentations and advertise when special events or exhibitions are staged in the venue. There are a wide variety of specialist facilities and courses on offer at Bentley TAFE. It's such an awesome facility that on more than one occasion I've had the opportunity to share it firsthand with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Skills and Training. On the most recent occasion, we announced the milestone in fee-free TAFE places that this government has achieved. It's a centrepiece of the Albanese cost-of-living package, helping the community address the skills shortage.

Also in my electorate is the Carlisle campus of South Metropolitan TAFE. It features a range of trades, paraprofessionals and course facilities. It's a purpose-built facility for refrigeration training and automotive refinishing, and it's the only one in Western Australia. Carlisle is also the location for the Adult Migrant English Program—as you can tell, I'm super proud of my electorate and the amazing facilities it has.

Before I get into the important changes this bill makes, I want to take this opportunity to address some of the incorrect assertions made by the member for Farrer in relation to this bill. There was an assertion about the number of apprentices rising under the Liberal government. It's simply not true. The member might like to know that, under the coalition government, the apprentice commencement rates declined. The facts are that there were 220,000 apprenticeships in 2014. By 2019, that number declined by 95,000 places, to 135,000. That's almost a 40 per cent decrease in apprenticeship opportunities under the coalition's watch. That's 95,000 fewer trained workers than we would have had if it weren't for coalition policy. It was only a COVID funding boost that arrested this slide. The member for Farrer once again started throwing accusations before checking the facts, because it was Labor that, after the election, made it a priority to invest in apprenticeships and traineeships, to invest in the areas where the economy needs skills the most. It also means that more money is going into apprenticeships.

Another fact the member for Farrer might like to know is that trade commencements went up by almost 20 per cent in Labor's first year of government—that's very impressive—and the almost 70,000 apprenticeships rose to 84,000 in 2023. That's 14,000 newly trained workers playing valuable roles in our jobs market thanks to Labor.

With a blossoming VET sector thanks to the Albanese government, it's important that we're ensuring integrity of the system. Integrity is vital to our training and education system. That's why this legislation is before us, because when our education sector is strong our economy can be strong. Our government is responsive to the needs of the sector that is serving us so well.

It's also responding to the quality issues that have come to our attention via important reports and reviews that were acted upon by Labor. It was the work of the 2023 Nixon review into the exploitation of the visa system and of the Braithwaite review which highlighted these issues. The joint standing committee report into international education shone a light on these matters that simply need to be addressed when it comes to maintaining quality and integrity while ensuring growth in the sector. The changes put forward by this bill will mean action can be taken against registered training organisations, RTOs, who are not genuine in their purpose. Fraudulent activity will be stamped out. As the Minister for Skills and Training put it: 'What we are simply doing is we're making it tougher for the bottom-feeders, the fraudsters and the cheats who take advantage of students for a quick buck. We're restoring integrity to the sector.' Most importantly, students will benefit.

Exploiting students is a low act. Students are simply aspiring to a better future, with hope and dreams. It is sad that this was fostered under the coalition government. I'm delighted about these key amendments in this bill which will help stamp out behaviour such as exploiting and luring students with false descriptions of training facilities and false testimonials. Tougher penalties will deter those operators who currently see penalties as a risk worth taking or a cost of doing business. Penalties will need to be tougher, and under this bill they will be. Fraud will be stopped, and the whole community will benefit. The message is clear: step up or step out.

The bill will stamp out fraud by empowering the Australian Skills Quality Authority, known as ASQA, to act when it identifies organisations that are not adhering to the requirements set by legislation. Last year the government invested $37.8 million to support the establishment of an integrity unit within ASQA. The funding was also used to upgrade ASQA's digital and data systems. A tip-off line has been established to detect and address unacceptable and dodgy RTO conduct. The bill will strengthen ASQA further. It will empower ASQA to take swift action to deter, and remove, these RTOs and apply greater scrutiny to the RTOs seeking to enter the VET sector. The bill also expands the kinds of false and misleading conduct that ASQA can target. It does this by providing for long-overdue increases to the penalties applicable to dodgy conduct and statutory breaches.

We must remember that this bill supports the majority of providers who are doing the right thing and providing quality education and training. There are genuine providers who are in the sector for genuine reasons and are providing outstanding, quality training for our future workforce. This bill will only benefit them. We are enhancing the quality of the service that they provide by stamping out rogue operators who risk bringing parts of the sector into disrepute. The removal of dodgy providers will make a big difference in securing the future of VET.

The bill will also force an RTO's registration to automatically lapse where an RTO has not delivered training and/or assessment for 12 months and prevent RTOs from expanding their course offering if they've been operating for less than two years. The bill will provide ASQA with greater discretion in prioritising, considering and deciding on RTO applications and empower the minister, with the agreement of state and territory ministers, to determine that ASQA need not, and must not, accept or process new RTO applications. It will expand offence and civil penalty provisions to cover a broader range of false and misleading representations by RTOs about their operations and increase fivefold the maximum penalties for breaches of relevant offences or civil penalties under the act.

These changes build on the Albanese government's investment in integrity and quality in the VET sector. We must respond and act. I know that the genuine RTOs in my community will applaud these changes. They're doing an outstanding job, and I'm excited about the new and flourishing service providers that we're working with in different communities to tailor training to specific needs. They need our support to ensure that we're equipped with the correct regulatory framework to protect their integrity and to make sure that we get great outcomes not just for students but also for our economy. I commend the bill to the House.

I have always seen vocational training as something that can have a real transformative effect on people's lives. It can help kids who might not necessarily be terrific at school find a pathway where the skills they have can really be used. That obviously goes for TAFE, but it also applies to the good-quality private training providers. My experience of good-quality private training providers is that they can help businesses really target the skills they need for their staff. But what brings this sector unstuck and what I've seen for nearly the last decade has been a sense that there are always going to be dodgy providers and there's not much you can do about it. The consequence of that has been terrible outcomes for many students. And these are not just young students; sometimes these are older, mature workers who want to reskill or people who come in from overseas in good faith to do courses and find out that they've been sold a dud.

It's really important that we don't accept that there's nothing that can be done about dodgy providers, and that's what the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024 is about. It's saying that there should be standards and, what's more, those standards should be enforced. We are absolutely committed to protecting students and to ensuring the integrity of our vocational education and training schemes in the whole sector as well as the registered training organisations.

This legislation, which I am very pleased to support, is the first tranche to implement our quality and integrity reforms, including by elevating the status of TAFE and vocational education and training and targeting the minority of unscrupulous and non-genuine providers, who tarnish the reputation of the whole sector. For someone who's been in business, as I have—I was in business for nearly 25 years before I came to this place—your sector gets a bad name not because of the good operators but because a small number of people do the wrong thing. We can fix that. That is in the best interests of all the honest operators who have integrity and who are genuinely running businesses where they do want to help people change their lives.

I really welcome the measures in this bill, which include things that are probably not that exciting as I run through them but are actually the practical things that will make a difference, For instance, there are things to ensure that ASQA, which is the quality-control body—I know I have certainly referred constituents to ASQA and I have certainly raised issues that have been brought to my attention with ASQA in the past—is now going to have the appropriate powers to take swift action to address integrity risks posed by these non-genuine, completely unscrupulous registered training organisations. It'll be able to apply greater scrutiny to new RTOs and promote a quality vocational education and training sector so that students benefit, the industry itself benefits and businesses who rely on skilled workers benefit. That means the whole community benefits.

Other changes include the ability to do a rapid review of whether something is going wrong but also to stop a new provider from being able to keep adding courses in its first two years of operation so it can be established and there can be a demonstrable basis on which to determine that it is meeting the standards that are required. The flexibility that ASQA is going to have will also make a difference. This ensures that ASQA's rules allow it to determine its priorities and to consider and make decisions in relation to applications. This matters because it further enables ASQA to apply the appropriate scrutiny to complex applications or to applications from providers that raise potential integrity issues. So this is about empowering the very body that monitors and enforces the standards, to ensure it can actually do the job that we're asking it to do.

It's worth pointing out that this bill brings together recommendations from various different reviews, including one that happened in 2018. So this isn't new. We've known that this needed to be done, but the previous government just let it drift. It failed miserably to enforce standards and to provide a better framework for the standards. That 2018 review, called the Braithwaite review, was a review of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. Its recommendations sat, unimplemented by the previous coalition government.

We are a government that identifies a problem and then acts on it, and strengthening the provisions in this bill will enable ASQA to take decisive action, to be able to do what we're asking them to do. As a government, we are encouraging young people and more mature workers to look at vocational education, to see where the skills shortages are and where opportunities for themselves might lie. This is a really key part of it.

Of course, TAFE remains an absolutely central part of what we do. Tens of thousands of students in New South Wales have taken advantage of fee-free TAFE. We have had our first full year of it. There have been tens of thousands in the care sector. The last figures that I pulled out went up to the last financial year, and there were 20,700 care sector workers, 6,400 technical and digital students, 5,800 construction students and 5,200 agriculture students going through fee-free TAFE—and they are figures that go to the last financial year. There have been a lot more in the second half of last year and, obviously, in this new TAFE year.

I would really encourage people: if you want to skill up, check out fee-free TAFE. That is going to provide a pathway to address the skills issues that we have in this nation.

I rise today to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. This comprehensive bill aims to fortify the integrity and enhance the quality of Australia's vocational education and training sector. It addresses integrity risk prevalent in the VET sector, mitigates the exploitation of vulnerable students by unscrupulous registered training organisations, and promotes a culture of excellence and accountability across the vocational education and training landscape. It also cracks down on the loopholes in our migration system that shameless organisations use to exploit and profit from vulnerable students.

VET serves as a cornerstone of Australia's education system. It offers a pathway for millions of Australians to acquire the skills and qualifications necessary to thrive in the workforce. Like 5,551 others in Holt, I have had the privilege of upskilling and learning a new qualification thanks to our VET sector. I earned a Certificate IV in Patisserie at William Angliss Institute, and I also did a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery at Box Hill TAFE.

Those who finish a diploma earn, on average, $1,300 a week—$312 more than those who only finished high school. This is equal to $16,000 a year more for working-class individuals—a huge boost in income and possible opportunities. For a family, this can represent the difference between living pay cheque to pay cheque and having a sense of financial security.

However, the proliferation of fraudulent RTOs engaging in deceptive practices poses a significant threat to the integrity and reputation of the sector. This jeopardises the aspirations and futures of countless students. At the heart of this bill lies a commitment to safeguard the interests of students and to uphold the quality standards of vocational education.

The spread of so-called ghost colleges in Australia, as highlighted in the recent investigative article by Clay Lucas for the Age, underscores the pressing issue of dodgy education providers exploiting the visa system. These institutions, often hidden within office buildings in Melbourne's CBD, claim to offer education to thousands of international students. There are nearly 300 private vocational institutions operating in Melbourne. At 190 Queen Street, there are 20 different colleges, where students can choose from 200 different courses. Sounds great, right? However, investigations by the Age reveal that many of these classrooms remain empty, with students nowhere to be found. Despite regulatory efforts and changes in visa laws, these ghost colleges persist, exploiting loopholes to profit from students who are primarily seeking work opportunities rather than genuine education.

In light of the spread of fraudulent practices within the vocational education system, it is imperative to uphold the integrity of both our visa system and our education system. The exploitation of loopholes and deceptive practices not only undermine the credibility of our education system but also jeopardise the integrity of our immigration processes by allowing a minority of operators to manipulate the system for personal gain. We risk tarnishing the reputation of Australia as a destination for quality education and skilled migration.

Upholding the integrity of our visa system is essential to ensuring that genuine students and skilled workers have access to opportunities that contribute positively to our society and economy. By enhancing robust measures to address integrity risk and by strengthening funding regulatory oversight, we seek to protect the rights and welfare of students while fostering a VET sector characterised by transparency, accountability and excellence.

This bill introduces a range of measures designed to enhance the efficacy and integrity of the Australian Skills Quality Authority, our national VET regulator. Among its key provisions, the bill empowers ASQA with greater authority to swiftly address integrity risk posed by a minority of non-genuine RTOs. Firstly, it mandates the automatic lapsing of an RTO's registration if it fails to provide training or assessment for 12 consecutive months, addressing concerns raised by the Braithwaite review. To ensure fairness, RTOs can seek extensions for legitimate reasons, such as natural disasters. Secondly, the bill restricts newly registered RTOs from adding new courses for the first two years, allowing ASQA to assess their operations thoroughly. Thirdly, it extends the period of internal review by the regulator, ensuring thorough consideration of complex decisions. Fourthly, ASQA gains greater discretion in prioritising registration applications, enhancing efficiency while maintaining scrutiny. In addition to these, the bill empowers the minister to halt processing of registration applications in consultation with ASQA, targeting non-genuine providers without disrupting the system. This safeguards the reputation of the VET sector and ensures the delivery of high-quality training outcomes for all students.

One of the central objectives of this bill is to prevent fraudulent RTOs taking advantage of vulnerable students through deceptive practices. This bill strengthens student protection by expanding penalties for false representations by RTOs. Tougher penalties are crucial to deter unscrupulous behaviour and safeguard the integrity of the VET sector. Currently, the maximum penalties for affected offences under the act have not changed since 2011. They range from $9,390 to $187,800. These amendments mean that those penalties will now range from $46,950 to $939,000 under the current penalty unit values.

Furthermore, this bill seeks to empower students with a robust system to raise complaints and seek redress against dodgy RTOs. This measure ensures that their voices are heard and their rights are protected. By establishing avenues for students to report instances of misconduct, ASQA can effectively investigate allegations of noncompliance and take firm action to hold offending RTOs accountable for their actions. Through implementing strict registration requirements and imposing harsh penalties for misconduct, the government aims to create a regulatory framework that deters bad actors while promoting the interest of students and the broader community. Drawing from the recommendations dating back to 2018, including through the Nixon and Braithwaite reviews, the bill addresses longstanding concerns to ensure that students have confidence in the standard of education provided. Incorporating insights from the 2023 interim report by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, along with the elements from the lapsed Regulator Performance Omnibus Bill 2022, the bill emphasises its dedication to enhancing regulator efficiency. Incorporating local training providers, such as public TAFEs, into the discourse surrounding this bill underscores the vital role that genuine RTOs play in delivering quality vocational education and training to students across the country.

Through this comprehensive approach, this bill seeks to uphold the reputation and effectiveness of the VET sector, reflecting a concerted effort to address longstanding issues and adapt to the evolving challenges. This bill builds upon the foundation laid by the National Skills Agreement, a landmark initiative led by the Albanese Labor government to revolutionise access to TAFE, enhance training quality and address crucial skills needs across the nation. The National Skills Agreement, backed by a groundbreaking $30 billion investment, reflects our government's steadfast commitment to working collaboratively with states and territories to achieve meaningful reform in the VET sector. This agreement reflects an acknowledgement that partnership cooperation and a long-term agreement are essential to implementing much-needed quality and capacity reforms in the VET sector. In addition, under the leadership of the Albanese Labor government, the introduction of 300,000 fee-free TAFE places stands as a testament to our commitment to accessible and equitable vocational education. This transformative program represents a significant investment in the future of Australia's workforce, providing opportunities for individuals from all walks of life to pursue quality education without the burden of financial constraints.

By removing the barriers to entry and expanding access to TAFE, we are empowering Australians to acquire the skills and qualifications needed to thrive in today's competitive job market, thereby laying the foundation for a more inclusive and prosperous society. The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill represents a comprehensive and forward-looking approach to strengthen and transform Australia's vocational education and training sector. To safeguard the credibility of our education system and maintain Australia's status as a global leader in education and skilled migration, it is imperative to fortify the integrity of our systems. This bill supports those genuine providers doing vital work and takes decisive action against the minority of providers who rort the system. The strength of the vocational education sector is not just about providing individuals with skills and opportunities; it's also about strengthening the foundation of our nation's prosperity and resilience. These initiatives embody our dedication to unlocking the full potential of our skilled workforce, driving economic prosperity and building a brighter future for all Australians.

A robust VET sector ensures that our workforce is equipped with the necessary expertise to drive innovation, productivity and economic growth. Moreover, it fosters social mobility by offering pathways to success for individuals from diverse backgrounds. By safeguarding the integrity and quality of vocational education, we uphold the promise of a brighter future for both our people and our country as a whole. As we strive to overcome challenges and seize opportunities in an ever-evolving global landscape, investing in the strength and integrity of our VET sector remains paramount.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 16:00

I want to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on this important bill, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024, particularly the members for Farrer, Werriwa, Nicholls, Corangamite, Fowler, Holt, Macquarie and Swan. I'd also like to thank stakeholders and states and territories for their invaluable feedback and insights into how this bill can best protect the reputation and integrity of our vocational education and training sector.

The Albanese government understands that a trustworthy and high-performing VET sector is essential not only to create meaningful and secure career opportunities but to deliver the skills our economy needs. The amendments in the bill will provide the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, better tools to protect students and tackle the minority of providers that engage in unscrupulous conduct and fail to demonstrate a genuine commitment to education and training delivery. These providers tarnish the reputation of the sector, and the bill reinforces that there is no place for them in the VET sector.

The bill builds on the government's track record in strengthening the integrity and the quality in VET. This includes negotiating a landmark $30 billion five-year national skills agreement, the first of its kind in a decade, investing $37.8 million to increase ASQA's capacity to detect and address unacceptable behaviour by registered training organisations and strengthening the 'fit and proper persons' requirements to apply increased scrutiny on those in management positions within RTOs. The government's track record includes turning around apprenticeships, and the member for Farrer particularly referred to apprentice commencements in her remarks. I remind her that the commencements steadily declined under the coalition, from 220,000 in 2014 to fewer than 135,000 in 2019, a drop of nearly 40 per cent. We're obviously at odds when it comes to the history of this area.

It took a global pandemic and the emergency injection of wage subsidies, costing $7.7 billion, to arrest this decline. Perhaps apprentices expected some sort of direct support from this huge spend, but they should have known better. Those opposite saw fit to funnel every cent of the $7.7 billion directly into employers' pockets. Not one cent went directly to an apprentice or trainee. The coalition knew that the spending was unsustainable, and their last budget, handed down by Josh Frydenberg, the then Treasurer, shows they planned to drop apprenticeship support to below pre-COVID levels. To paraphrase the member for Farrer in her second reading speech on the bill: you can defend this wage subsidy or defund it; you cannot do both.

The biggest users of the coalition wage subsidy were businesses like fast-food giants, retail stores and call centres. The design of the scheme allowed businesses to funnel employees into traineeships in name only to access wage subsidies and pay workers below the standard award wage. I can exemplify that by referring to the Fair Work Ombudsman investigation into the conduct of a fast-food employer, Grill'd, that employed 2,800 employees and placed them on so-called traineeships under this agreement. I have to say, there were was, in many instances, very little training indeed, but it did allow the company to pay these workers below the minimum standards that would be provided to an employee. In some cases, some of these so-called trainees were providing evidence to the Fair Work Ombudsman that they received no more than eight hours of training in 18 months of employment.

We don't really believe that the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program was really an apprenticeship scheme. That's not to say we didn't support wage subsidies; obviously, we supported JobKeeper. We proposed it. It was originally rejected by the member for Cook, the then Prime Minister, but the previous government did finally accept it as a good approach, of course, and Labor supported that. And we do support wage subsidies, particularly at a time of a pandemic, but we do not accept that the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program was an apprenticeship scheme in the way in which traditional apprenticeship schemes are operated. For that reason we disagree with the contentions by the member for Farrer in relation to those issues in her contribution on this bill, but we do appreciate her support overall for the bill as introduced by the government.

To illustrate my point, in media reporting one of the trainees involved in this program was quoted as saying, 'Originally I was told there would be no more than six months to a year, and then, about 18 months into my employment, I finally got off my traineeship, having had two training sessions totalling eight hours'—as I said earlier. We would say we are very different from that approach. The Albanese government is targeting investment to apprentices and employers in areas of the economy where skills are needed the most, and I think it's fair to say it's working. You need only to look at the architecture of the New Energy Apprenticeships scheme to see the difference. It is not front-end loaded. There's payment to employers and apprentices throughout the entire life of the scheme to ensure we increase the likelihood of apprentices completing their apprenticeships, because we need those skills for many sectors of the economy. That's what we will continue to do.

Trade commencements were up almost 20 per cent in Labor's first year of government compared with June 2019, pre COVID and pre emergency stimulus spending. We agree with the coalition that we cannot continue to fund an unsustainable emergency $3.8 billion COVID wage subsidy. The member for Farrer also referred to the VET FEE-HELP program in her remarks. From 2009 to leaving government in 2013, the previous Labor government provided VET FEE-HELP scheme loans of a total of $1.39 billion. Over the next three years to 2016, the coalition allowed VET FEE-HELP loans to skyrocket to over $9 billion total—a more than sixfold increase—overwhelmingly to for-profit providers. Despite being urged to rein the loans in, the coalition sat on their hands for years, taking too long to act. The non-genuine and unscrupulous providers we saw exploit the VET FEE-HELP program are the kind of providers the Albanese government is cracking down on in this bill. This minority of providers continue to tarnish the sector and undermine the majority of genuine providers doing the right thing, whether they are public providers, industry providers or providers for profit who deliver excellent training and education in many respects.

The bill also responds to issues highlighted in reviews related to the VET sector and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. These include the 2018 review, with its report entitled All eyes on quality: review of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 report, conducted by Professor Valerie Braithwaite; the 2023 rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system, conducted by the former chief commissioner of Victoria Police, Christine Nixon; and the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, with its report entitled 'Quality and integrity - the quest for sustainable growth': interim report into international education.

The measures in this bill increase ASQA's powers to take decisive action against non-genuine and unscrupulous training providers. The bill enables the automatic lapse of the RTO registration where it has not delivered training and/or assessment for 12 consecutive months, as recommended by the Braithwaite review that was commissioned by the previous government. This targets integrity risks posed by dormant RTOs that are not demonstrating a genuine commitment to training delivery. Students will be better protected by measures requiring new RTOs to demonstrate their ability to deliver quality training before being allowed to expand their course offerings. Providing ASQA with greater discretion to prioritise, consider and decide applications for initial registration means that ASQA can better address risks as well as skill shortages and community need.

The bill supports the integrity, health and quality of the VET sector by empowering the minister responsible for VET to determine specific periods where ASQA is not required to accept or must not process initial applications for RTO registration. This will better enable ASQA to address trends in applications by non-genuine providers or manage unsustainable influxes into the VET sector. This ensures risks can be appropriately managed before providers enter the sector, for the benefit of students and the sector as a whole. To maintain appropriate checks and balances, the use of this ministerial power will be time limited and require the minister to consult with ASQA and seek the agreement of state and territory skills ministers prior to the determination being made.

Expanding and increasing offence and civil penalties fivefold will make it clear to RTOs that ASQA is armed to impose tough punishment where RTOs seek to exploit vulnerable students through false and misleading representations or otherwise engage in egregious conduct. Providing ASQA with increased flexibility to expand the period within which it can conduct an internal review of decisions, combined with technical and administrative amendments in the bill, will support ASQA to be a more efficient regulator and make its processes more proportionate, effective and fair.

The bill provides ASQA powers to respond effectively to integrity threats and safeguard the quality and reputation of the Australian VET sector, as well as support the vast majority of genuine registered training organisations. This bill is the next step in this government's plan to ensure the sector has the capacity to deliver quality training outcomes and meet Australia's skills and training workforce needs into the future.

I welcome the opposition's public statements of support for the bill, and I look forward to working constructively with them and crossbench members to facilitate swift passage of the bill. This will allow students, industry and the whole Australian community to benefit from the removal of non-genuine and unscrupulous providers who undermine integrity and trust in vocational education and training. A strong VET sector is vital for a strong economy. Once again, I thank members for their engagement on this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

It's a great honour—a great privilege, in fact—to be part of a government that has the right priorities for Australia and particularly the right priorities for regional and Middle Australia. On 1 July, the Albanese Labor government will be ensuring that every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut, and nine in 10 Tasmanian taxpayers will be getting a bigger tax cut than they would have under the now-to-be-discarded stage 3.

The Albanese Labor government is determined to ensure Australians earn more. We want people to earn more; we're backing higher wages. We want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn—not like those opposite, who want Australians to work longer for less. When you hear some of the debate that has been going on over the past week and a half over these tax cuts, you wouldn't believe that those opposite are getting set to actually support these tax cuts, because all the debate has been around how critical they are of the fact that the tax cuts under stage 3 have changed. I have a message for those opposite. If they truly believe that the stage 3 tax cuts are better for this country, then they should vote for them. They have the opportunity. They can vote for the stage 3 tax cuts unchanged and, if they have their way and that goes through the Senate, then the stage 3 tax cuts remain as they are currently legislated. If they truly believe that those stage 3 tax cuts are the best option for this nation, then they should stand by their words and vote for them. But, instead, we hear that they're going to vote for the Labor government's changes because the evidence is clear: the Labor government's changes to tax cuts are better for the vast majority of Australian taxpayers and most particularly lower- and middle-income Australians. That shows that we have the right priorities for the nation.

While we're talking about the right priorities, that brings me to my home state of Tasmania, because you may have heard the news today that Tasmania is going to yet another early election. We have four-year state election terms in Tasmania. Three years ago, the Liberal government went to an election a year early, citing all sorts of reasons, and now, today, they've announced again that they're going a year early. So, rather than getting two four-year terms over eight years, we're getting two three-year terms, equalling six years. This is the sort of 'strong, stable majority Liberal government' that Tasmanians were promised but never received.

Three years ago, of course, Tasmanians elected a Peter Gutwein led majority Liberal government, and, in the three years since, that government has absolutely imploded. Peter Gutwein's gone. He was replaced by Jeremy Rockliff—nice guy, but, gee, it's a hapless government that he leads. They've lost minister after minister after minister. They've lost two of their members to the crossbench. It is diabolical for the state and terrible for investor confidence. They can't manage the health system. They can't manage education. The place is falling apart under the Liberal government, and we desperately need a change.

That's where I come to the right priorities for Tasmania—because Rebecca White is a strong Labor leader in the great tradition of strong Labor leaders. She has youth, but she also has experience. She grew up on a farm, she knows the value of hard work and she knows the value of getting that work done. She's got the right priorities for Tasmania, and I feel actually privileged to call her a friend.

One of the things that Rebecca's going to do if elected Premier on 23 March is expand the services of 18 regional and rural hospitals. A Labor government led by Rebecca will establish a dedicated fund for upgrading regional hospital infrastructure, giving local communities the resources to invest in things like X-ray, ultrasound or ECG machines, diagnostic equipment, extra beds, new rooms and more, and it will expand local services to include 24/7 emergency care, rehabilitation and more. This stands in stark contrast to the failures in regional health under the current minority Liberal government.

I'm pleased to say there will be regional and rural hospital upgrades for a number of district and regional hospitals around Tasmania, including in my electorate of Lyons. The New Norfolk District Hospital, Midlands Multi-Purpose Health Centre in Oatlands, Campbell Town Health and Community Service, Deloraine District Hospital, St Helens District Hospital and Community Centre, St Marys Community Health Centre, May Shaw Health Centre in Swansea, Toosey Aged and Community Care in Longford and Tasman Multi-Purpose Service down in Nubeena can all look forward to upgrades under a Tasmanian Labor government led by Rebecca White.

A Labor government under Rebecca White will also upgrade six local ambulance stations to operate 24/7, because where you live shouldn't determine whether you live or die in an emergency. Labor will upgrade ambulance stations in six regional centres to operate 24/7, with staffing by permanent paramedics. Of those six, three are in my electorate. There's Nubeena down there on the Tasman Peninsula, Swansea on the east coast and Oatlands in the midlands. It's a very important initiative by Rebecca White and the Tasmania Labor team.

We all know that it's getting more difficult to hire doctors and health professionals for the regions. Labor has a plan to offer free degrees for local doctors, nurses and health workers in order to get more people on the books in hospitals in local communities. We know Tasmania needs more nurses, paramedics, doctors and allied health workers. They are the backbone of our public health system. Labor, under Rebecca White, has a plan to attract and train 150 new health workers by offering free university degrees to encourage them to come to Tasmania and work in Tasmania for at least three years. These are great health initiatives from the Tasmanian Labor team.

There are a whole raft of other priority plan areas from the Labor team under Rebecca, including on housing and education. There are all sorts of areas that Labor is focusing on. Rebecca White has the right priorities for Tasmania. She has been laser focused during her term as opposition leader on holding the failed Liberal minority government to account. The cost of living, health and housing have been Rebecca White's priorities and they will be the priorities of Rebecca White as Premier. I look forward to 23 March and the election of a Rebecca White Labor government in Tasmania.

I am just checking this is Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024 we are debating here. I appreciate the previous member's comments on the Tasmanian political scene, which he is very entitled to make on an appropriation bill, but I might come within the envelope of the more than $600 million of Commonwealth government expenditure that we can comment on when talking about appropriation here in this chamber. In particular, as we know, this is a way for the government to revise and adjust their budget predictions through the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. So this is the government implementing the MYEFO from late last year, which had a lot of things of great concern to me and my community. Regrettably, the most significant is the adjustments to infrastructure funding. We should really call them cuts to infrastructure funding. I know my electorate is not alone. So many parts of the country saw some tragic decisions by this government thanks to the minister's review of the very, very impressive forward program of infrastructure investment the previous government had announced. The current government went to the election claiming they were going to honour it. Much like many other things, whether it be the $275 cut to electricity prices or the legislated stage 3 tax cuts, the infrastructure cut is just another example of the now government saying one thing to get elected and doing a very different thing after that election. Again, I predict that the people of this country will take a very dim view of this and, when they go to the ballot box in the next 12 months or so, have a lot to say about a government that has broken so many promises.

This one's very significant and acute for my community. Most people who are not from Adelaide would be surprised to hear this, but Adelaide is the only capital city that has Highway 1 running through its suburbs. If you circumnavigate Australia, when you get to the big cities or, frankly, even a lot of small towns, you will almost always take a bypass. But due to a range of quirks of history it is the case that, in Adelaide, Highway 1 runs through the suburbs of the city. It goes through the suburbs of my electorate along what's called Portrush Road. The starkest example of the madness of the situation is that heavy freight going from Melbourne to Perth travels through my electorate. There are some 18 traffic lights and seven schools literally upon this thoroughfare. It is just not acceptable that in 2024 we have the major freight route around continental Australia going through the suburbs of a city of over 1.3 million people.

The previous government had a plan to change all of that. The government I was a member of, the Morrison government, developed with the then state Liberal government, the Marshall government, a vision for the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass. That would have seen all that heavy freight I've just outlined leaving what's called the Southern Expressway before it goes through the Adelaide Hills—so around Monarto—and then travelling up around the back of the Adelaide Hills, rather than through suburban Adelaide, to connect with where most of that freight is looking to go: either to Port Adelaide or on to Port Augusta or Darwin or wherever. And obviously it would have worked in reverse when the freight was flowing in the opposite direction.

It makes a lot of sense, and it has been talked about for some time. We even, finally, in the last couple of years, thanks to the work of those two governments, saw all of the stakeholders, all of the industry groups and all of the local councils that would be on the new route come together and express their support for this project. We did all that work.

Then we announced and put funding in the budget for the Truro bypass, which is in the member for Barker's electorate. That is the first step in a series of projects that would see that bypass constructed. That was a very clear show of faith and show of commitment to this bypass—to getting this heavy freight out of suburban Adelaide—by the previous Morrison government and the state Liberal government.

To be fair to the state Labor government that was elected some two years ago, they kept the funding for their part of the deal in their budget. In fact, they delivered two budgets where the funding of the Marshall government was left in there by that new government. Until late last year, it seemed fanciful and farcical that, for a funded project—one which had the support of Infrastructure Australia and of Infrastructure South Australia, the state government's commensurate body; one which a state Labor government continued to remain committed to; one for which funding had been outlined years earlier and was in the forward estimates of budgets; and where the federal Labor government had gone to an election saying it was going to honour and to proceed with all of these projects that we had announced and, in this case, put funding into and secured funding for—just before Christmas, that funding would be ripped away.

Let's understand the significance of this project and the betrayal. I obviously speak for the interests of my electorate and how they are affected, but it impacts not just the electorate of Sturt. I mentioned that this project is actually in the member for Barker's electorate, and of course he is devastated at the impact on his community of seeing that this great opportunity to get freight out of the township of Truro has been defunded by the Albanese government. Indeed, it's not just members of the opposition. The member for Mayo—of course, an Independent member—who represents the Adelaide Hills, is just as passionate about getting these heavy trucks out of her electorate. There are literally deaths from this heavy freight at what's called the tollgate, which is in my electorate but it is actually on the route of all the commuters that are coming from the member for Mayo's electorate into and out of metropolitan Adelaide. That is a very dangerous part of the Adelaide metropolitan road network that would be transformed if all that heavy freight wasn't having to come down in low gear, constantly having issues with braking and, at times, running right through an extremely busy intersection.

Even the Labor member for Boothby has said—at least, at public meetings full of residents that are furious about this—that she's supportive of this and is going to talk to the minister and work on securing funding for it. Well, good luck. We look forward to seeing that happen, because you don't say one thing to your community and then do a different thing here in Canberra. At those meetings, these comments are made—and people record these meetings, evidently. The good thing is: there's no ambiguity, confusion or ability for someone to say, 'No, I didn't say that,' when it has been recorded. That's the very helpful thing about recording these public meetings.

So we wish the member for Boothby well on delivering on her commitment to get this project funded. But it would surprise me that the government would defund project a few months ago and then re-fund it, when, in the meantime, they've rubbished the project and had all sorts of disparaging things to say about it, months and months later. I hope that they have a conversion on the road to Damascus on this point. I fear that won't be the case, and, therefore, I'm very committed to fighting at the community level alongside colleagues like the member for Barker and the member for Mayo to make sure that we show just how furious the people of Adelaide—in fact, the people of South Australia—are about this disgraceful betrayal.

It is such a logical project that will deliver such significant productivity improvements to the Australian freight network. We're talking about investing in Highway 1. Like I say, the beneficiaries of investing in this are not just my constituents, who I prioritise. If you're sending heavy freight from Melbourne to Perth or vice versa, then there's a benefit from a productivity point of view for that freight. There are enormous road safety benefits to this. The Road Transport Association in South Australia warmly welcomed the broader concept of the bypass when it was funded and said that, despite the fact that the route is longer, there's a lot of sense and efficiency for the road transport sector in shifting off the carriageway through suburban Adelaide to instead go around the back of the Adelaide Hills. So it's a completely logical project, and it concerns us greatly that this comes against the backdrop of so many other broken promises, as I outlined earlier in my contribution.

It makes us start to wonder if we can take this government at their word on anything. I say that because, as we approach the next election, we're going to have all sorts of other things said by this government that fall into the category of promises like cutting electricity bills by $275, honouring stage 3 tax cuts or building the Truro bypass. The people of my electorate—like the people across this country—are quite reasonably going to wonder why they would believe anything they say. Why would this government expect the people of this country to believe anything they say? Now what we know is that, if this government goes to the next election making commitments to my electorate, to my home state or to all Australians, all that means is that it's something they will say before an election to get elected and then conveniently decide that they don't have to do after the election. It's a pretty fundamental part of our democracy. People should be expecting governments to honour commitments that they campaign on. They should expect that the promises they take to elections—just as in the case of this government—should be honoured when they are elected.

We're, potentially, on the cusp of a very frightening scenario around naval shipbuilding, which we're told about through all these leaks coming out of the defence department. It's good to see the defence department is leaking as consistently under this government as it was under the previous government. As per usual we read all this speculation—the softening of the ground for some major realignment of the surface shipbuilding program through the review that was commissioned by the government coming out of the Defence Strategic Review. Part of that review was to have another review. The review recommended by that review has been with the government for many months now, and apparently it is being announced next week. What I'll be looking for is to see whether the commitments that were made to my home state of South Australia on shipbuilding are honoured. There's a bit of a pattern here, isn't there? It seems like no matter what the commitment was—whether it's in defence, infrastructure, cost of living or tax—it all seems to change after an election. It all seems to be different. There are always very convenient weasel words that are put around these things.

At the end of the day, if that surface ship review sees a loss of continuous shipbuilding and jobs in my home state of South Australia, I promise you there will be hell to pay in the state of South Australia. And, if there's some kind of trickery, where they say, 'Look, what we're doing is just slightly scaling back the number of frigates, but then there are going to be these other vessels that we'll get to. You'll all still get continuous shipbuilding'—if there's any fraud like that, people just won't buy it. They will not buy it. We can already see that the South Australian Premier seems to have been given quiet advance notice of this bad news for South Australia so he can figure out his spin and lines and try and make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He's already adjusting all his commentary in saying, 'The nine vessels isn't what's key; it's all about continuous shipbuilding.' I suspect there's going to be some kind of attempt to say, 'Look, we're doing six frigates and we're building some alternate vessels on top of that, and we're going to work through the detail of it all, but don't worry; it's all going to happen in South Australia'—just like they were going to build the Truro bypass and haven't, just like they were going to cut our power bills by $275 a year and haven't, and just like they were going to honour the stage 3 tax cuts and haven't.

When this comes up next week, if the leaks out of Defence in the media are true, we will watch for that and we will know what it really means if that's the announcement—that is, a breach of trust again with the people of South Australia and a broken promise by this government that goes to elections and says one thing and does another thing. When the people of South Australia and of my electorate of Sturt get the chance to adjudicate on that, I'm pretty confident what the message will be, loud and clear, at the ballot box.

Thank you to my colleagues in the chamber. It may be that we have to break and go to the other place, but we'll come back when that happens.

We have spoken so much about the cost-of-living issues facing Australian families, for good reason; it is the No. 1 issue facing families throughout this nation. It's one thing to identify a problem; the onus is on us to find solutions. We've spoken about the two key levers being fiscal and monetary policy. It is our contention and submission that all that work is being left to the Reserve Bank. The only blunt tool they have is interest rates, and that blunt tool hits a section of the economy and the nation harder than any other: young Australians who are paying off a mortgage.

We know that the average income has dropped in real terms by $8,000 for Australians. But, for those paying a mortgage, in addition to that $8,000 drop in real income is an average increase in repayments for a mortgage of $24,000—so $8,000 plus $24,000, for the average. As land increases in cost, and the cost of buying a house or a unit rises as you get closer to the city, like in seats like mine, those costs are exponentially higher. But we work in averages here, and, in my seat, housing is more expensive, food is more expensive and transport is more expensive, and people are earning less and hurting more.

If we leave it to the Reserve Bank, it means we're not turning our minds to all the tools we have in this place and in the executive through fiscal policy. I'd like to speak to two. One is spending and the other is productivity, and this government is not doing enough on either; in fact, it's not doing anything on either. Before we get to the particular tools you can use in fiscal policy, I'd like to briefly speak about trust. Trust in the institution of the executive, the government, and the institution of the parliament is paramount. These are serious problems, and Australians are hurting. But, if they don't trust us to look after their interests above our own, what's the point?

I've got a table in my office; I call it the pool room. If there's a particularly good report or article, that gets to go in the pool room.

An honourable member: Straight to the pool room!

Straight to the pool room! That table, the pool room, keeps building, and today I added another article to it. I keep this one here, and I keep coming back to it. It's the Edelman trust report. It's been running for about 28 years. It's an annual report, and this is the 2023 report about the trust barometer; I'm looking forward to seeing what it has to say in 2024! In 2023 they saw one of the greatest drops in trust in government since they've been running this report for Australia. We are not alone in this around the world, but the drop here sees, as a percentage, only 45 per cent of Australians trusting the government. That's not asked and conducted in a partisan way; it's conducted as an institution: 'The institution of government, do you trust it?' Sadly, with the way that real tax reform has been thrown in the bin, and the manner timing in which it has been conducted, weeks before a by-election, I'm confident—and I say it with regret—that that number will drop again this year when we see the Edelman trust report. Whatever the merits of the particular change—and we have supported that for good reason—how the decision was made matters and the timing matters, because Australians will be looking to this government to solve the serious problems that they have, particularly when it comes to spending and productivity.

With that I would like to turn to the issue of spending. Another document that is in the pool room for good reason is the 2023 Intergenerational report. I urge all members to come back to this document whenever they can.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:40 to 16:52

My reference to the pool room in my office was not a reference to a billiard table; it was a reference to a table where documents and reports go if they have said something of note that's worth coming back to. One of those documents that lives in my pool room is the Intergenerational report. If you go to chapter 7, it talks about government spending. There are some alarming numbers in there about government spending. It's important to note that, along with increasing productivity, constraining proportionate government spending is key to keeping inflation down and, therefore, key to keeping interest rates and mortgage payments down.

When you look at issues of government spending, the whole Intergenerational report looks at a timescale that, with due respect to the press gallery, they are not really interested in. It is a timescale that goes back through many governments, and it will go ahead through many governments. There is a chart on page 144 that I urge all members to have a look at. It is chart 7.2, titled 'Real Australian Government spending per person'. It is measured in real dollars per person as at 2022-23 prices. So there's no claim that this is about inflation. It is not a story of inflation; it is a story of a real increase in spending. At the turn of this century, in 2001 and 2002, government spending per person in real dollars was just above $15,000. At the moment, it is just under $25,000 per person. I'm not going to pretend there wasn't a spike on the previous government's watch. That was, of course, because of the extraordinary circumstances of COVID. So there was a spike and then it came back down. The bit that comes back down is what I am referring to. It is now sitting at just under $25,000 of government spending per person in this country. If you look at the trajectory forward, you will see that in 2062, in just under 40 years, when another generation of Australians will be here, they will be paying, in real terms, $40,000 per person. That is not adjusted for inflation; that's in real terms.

If we as a nation are to continue to be a prosperous and free country that is able to provide all of the services that Australians want and expect from us, to allow people to have a standard of living that is better than the generations that have come before them—and that's why it's called the 'intergenerational report'—we collectively have to turn our minds to the issue of government spending. We have to. Of course, there is a variety of departments and ministries. You have just to stick your head out the window as you drive around Canberra to know how much of that money is spent on this town. It's a lovely town, but that is all money that is sent here by Australians.

Australia is changing. We're getting older, and there are certain challenges that come with that. We don't pretend they don't occur. The five fastest-growing areas are health, aged care, NDIS, defence and, No. 5, interest on government debt. Interest on government debt is the fifth-largest and fastest-growing expenditure item. We're caught in this vicious cycle whereby, in not properly pulling our weight in terms of fiscal policy, one of the fastest-growing areas contributing to inflation is government debt. We have seen this movie play out before. The then Labor opposition to John Howard didn't like that John Howard noted that Liberals would constrain government spending and therefore reduce interest rates. They didn't like that, but that's what the evidence shows. That's what the economic theory shows. It's not something that's just part of a talking point. We have seen what actually happens if government spending is unconstrained. That is something that all of us on both sides of the aisle need to turn our minds to.

I'd now like to turn to the second lever of fiscal policy, which is productivity. I'm on the House Standing Committee on Economics, and we are finishing up a report into productivity and dynamism in Australia. I thank all of the groups and individuals who have made submissions. I thank my colleagues on that committee from the government but also from the crossbench. It has been conducted in the spirit I hope future generations would appreciate. Some of the things we have learnt—without giving the game away for the report that we still have to sign off on—include that our economy lends itself to monopolies and oligopolies.

The theory behind monopolies and oligopolies—I will stick with oligopolies—is quite simple. It is an example of market failure where we're not truly competitive. Where there is a limited number of firms or providers, whether it's manufacturing or services, it will necessarily lead to a rise in prices. Australians know that. They know that when it comes to shopping for food, where you've got two providers, Coles and Woolworths, occupying 60 per cent of the market. They know that when it comes to airlines, where you have a dominant player in Qantas, who have only ever really had one other competitor. They know that when it comes to banks, where we really have a four-pillar banking system. And they know it in a variety of other areas. I love going to Bunnings and getting my Bunnings sausage, but it does strike me that a lot of smaller, family hardware businesses no longer exist. One of the appeals and advantages for oligopoly firms is that, in the short term, they get to offer discount prices, often at a loss. But we know from repeated history that, over the long term, those reductions are recovered many times over.

So we need to turn our minds to productivity, and there are so many options for us to look at to increase productivity, including actual tax reform. And this isn't the time to relitigate the stage 3 changes and what they mean for aspiration and opportunity in this country. But that change, removing the 37c bracket, was critical tax reform that wasn't just about productivity on a spreadsheet. It was productivity in our souls and in our minds, where young Australians who study hard and work hard say, 'I'm not in that bracket now, but I really want to be and I'm going to back myself to get there.' That's what aspiration is. It's not just a word. It's in people's souls and their minds and how they conduct themselves and how they act and the decisions that they make. It's the fire in the belly that has made this country great.

That's why we back aspiration. That's why we should look for policies that reward effort and aspiration. The true inequity in this country is that those who can truly afford to look down on their fellow Australians have got enough assets to engage accountants and lawyers to manage their affairs so they're not actually paying the sort of tax that young Australians seeking to get ahead are. They're not doing that. But I'm not here to relitigate the stage 3 tax reforms.

The other is industrial relations. Industrial relations are key to every sector of our economy and our society. When you listen to the minister bringing forward productivity-killing bill after productivity-killing bill, from the talking points you would think that we are living in a Charles Dickens novel—that we are in the early stages of industrialisation, where you've got big fat-cat bosses, and Oliver Twist and other poor, wretched creatures are living a slavelike existence. That's not the modern economy or existence that we have now.

I will come back to the documents in the pool room now, but we need to tell this government that, when it comes to looking after Australians, they are dreaming.

Prior to the election, the Prime Minister and Labor candidates, members and senators, made a lot of promises and pledges. They said they were going to do politics better. They said they were going to be accountable and transparent. Unfortunately, they haven't been.

I'm pleased to be able to rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024 because many of us weren't permitted to speak on Appropriation Bill (No.1) because Labor guillotined the debate. They gagged the debate—wanted to rush it through. Appropriation bills are important because they allow the proper financing of the government's functions, and this bill, as well as others, provides the legislative authority for additional funding for government agencies to allow, as it were, the government to do what it needs to do. So that's important. And the government is doing what it needs to do insofar as the various departments et cetera will have the appropriate amount of money for the fiscal year ahead. But the government is not doing what it needs to do when it comes to regional Australia. There are many examples which are a blight on what the government is rolling out—on what the government is doing.

Just this week the government announced changes made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Murray Watt. I feel for the senator. It's a difficult job, being an agriculture minister in a Labor government, because they don't have the capacity to really have a vision for regional Australia, let alone farming in those areas. They have so many competing interests in cabinet, and the regions usually aren't one of them. Farming and agriculture certainly are not part of the mix when the caucus get together and decide where they're going to spend money, where they will have a focus and where they will do what's right—or what they think is right—for and on behalf of Australians.

If the biosecurity levy model put in place by this government were not so disgraceful, it would be laughable. In no other country would farmers be expected to pay the biosecurity levies of imported foods from another nation, but in this country they are! Our hardworking farmers, already under siege because of the policies of those opposite, are being asked to pay a biosecurity protection levy for goods that are coming in from their competitors—imported products from other countries—which are going to sit alongside our farmers' products on the same supermarket shelves in Australian cities and towns. How ridiculous! How nonsensical! How embarrassing! I am aghast at this.

Minister Watt has announced that there will be a 30 per cent reduction of this proposed biosecurity protection levy, but it's already too high. The levy shouldn't be there at all, yet farmers are expected to say, 'Alleluia! Let the sunshine in,' because there's been a 30 per cent reduction in what they were going to have to pay. We should be so lucky! The levy shouldn't be there at all. There should be no levy. Why should Australian farmers pay the biosecurity levy for their competitors? I would love to know the answer to that question. I would love to know why it should be paid by our farmers, who are doing it so tough and who largely propped up this country, with their friends in mining, through COVID. They still put food on our tables. They still put food on ships and in the bellies of planes to go overseas to help our balance of payments. Our farmers feed our nation and many others besides, and yet what do they cop from the Labor government? They cop kicks in the guts all the time, like these biosecurity charges.

Don't just take my word for it. The Chief Executive Officer of Grain Producers Australia, Colin Bettles—I know him well—said:

Our view is that we spend enough on levies already and that the government should spend what they have better.

I couldn't have said it better myself. He continued:

We already pay 1.02 per cent of our bottom line in compulsory levies that go to research and development and biosecurity and global market access.

That's good, because we need R&D. We need to improve what we're doing. I admire the work being done at Charles Sturt University at Wagga Wagga, particularly in the space of chickpeas and other products. They have a world-class equine laboratory there, where they're doing research not just into horses but into veterinary science. The work that they're doing for agriculture and through the drought hub and everything else is second to none.

Labor members opposite should know that part of that research and development is at the Graham Centre, named after a former Labor state agriculture minister, Eddie Graham, who was a very good man. But that was back in the fifties, when Labor actually cared about the regions. They have long since stopped caring about the regions and certainly about farming.

Mr Bettles was quite right when he added:

It's ridiculous for the government to call us the only beneficiaries of biosecurity, it's fundamentally flawed logic … enough is enough.

People like Mr Bettles would now be expected to bow and scrape at the feet of the Labor cabinet because they have reduced the biosecurity levy. He should be so thankful that they have reduced what is an unnecessary charge! It defies logic. There was another interesting quote, from Terry O'Leary. He raises watermelons in the Queensland town of Chinchilla, in the Western Downs of that fine state, in the seat of Maranoa. He said:

I think it's disgusting the way they are treating us as a cash cow—

This is a fascinating quote—

You wouldn't go to the State of Origin and expect players to pay for security at the front gate out of their own pockets. So why should farmers?

Good point! It's a very good point.

When you look at horticulture, 32 per cent of the industry is considering leaving.

That's almost a third. That's not just because of the biosecurity levies but also because of the changes to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, where farmers are expected to pay workers for a minimum 30 hours a week, every week—even during unseasonable conditions when there possibly might not be any work.

All farmers know that you should be paid a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Those people who use foreign labour, who do not do that—who exploit the systems—should be reported, should be charged and have the full force of authorities brought against them. But, in the main—the absolute extreme main—our farmers rely on Pacific workers. They do the right thing by Pacific workers; they pay Pacific workers the right amount. Yet, under the union conspired laws put in by those opposite, they're now going to get whacked again. They're going to get whacked for having their competitors' products. They're going to be charged for the biosecurity for overseas competitors. They're going to get whacked and have to pay workers to sit around and do nothing when there's no work to be done, under the new union conspired, union inspired, union led rules that are taking over PALM. We have Mr O'Leary saying it is ridiculous that Labor is putting a tax on an industry that is shrinking, and this will affect our food security.

The members here, who represent the electorates of O'Connor, Nicholls and Casey, know how important food security is, particularly my regional colleagues. The member for O'Connor is very upset about how his sheep farmers are being treated with the live export nonsense that is going on through this parliament and through this nation. No other country in the world has an Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System in place, where animal welfare is placed at No.1—and it should be. But we are now facing the prospect that we will just outsource animal welfare to other countries who couldn't give two hoots about sheep, cattle or anything else they are exporting live. But we do. Our farmers do. They take exception to the fact they get accused by the member for Clark, and many others besides, who say that they don't put animal welfare as their No.1 priority. I'll tell you what else they put down as a priority, and that's making a quid. Farmers shouldn't have to do something for nothing. Farmers shouldn't have to be hit all the time by charges and levies, whether it's for biosecurity or to be told they aren't animal welfare conscious. This is just nonsense!

It's hard enough to farm in this nation now without the Labor government putting on all these imposts and impositions. When they do—as they probably will—ban all animal exports, those export trades and routes will be taken up by countries who don't care at all about animal welfare! Suffer, the poor sheep, as they will. That is what will happen. But they'll go to their little NIMBY meetings, they'll have their tofu, they'll sit around drinking their chamomile tea and they'll say: 'Aren't we good? We stopped the sheep trade. Aren't we good?' But they won't even care about the sheep that will be on the ships, that won't be having their pant score measured, that won't have airflow on the ships, like we do, and when they die they'll just get thrown overboard. It's a disgrace. We in this country outsource so much these days to countries that just don't care. It is a nonsense.

Then, as the member for Nicholls will rightly say, we have the changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. My goodness! We in the Nationals, and regional Liberals too, fought so hard against the draft Basin Plan back in 2010. There we were with Labor wanting just about every available drop of water sent out the mouth of the Murray. The mouth of the Murray was not even put on the early maps of Australia because it was banked up by sand. But never let the historical facts get in the way of a good environmental story. The Murray, before man-made interventions such as weirs, locks and dams, dried up often. It did. People had picnics in the dry creek beds and the riverbeds of our various ephemeral streams.

Yet what do Labor want to do? They want to take the water away. They want to buy it out of our communities. What happens when a farmer in stress and distress sells their water? The price of water goes through the roof because the government has just intervened and that farmer takes their money and they leave the community. It leaves the community literally high and dry. It is not just the farming community that suffers. It is the hairdresser, the motor mechanic and the school.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:16 to 17:27

The decision by this government to fund Foodbank to the tune of $14 million today and the decision to fund an advertising campaign for its stage 3 tax cuts to the tune of $40 million says just about everything about this government and its priorities. What a disgrace—how shameful that is! That is $14 million for those hardworking charities who do so much, particularly in our regional communities. People are going to Foodbank and people going to St Vincent de Paul and other charitable organisations—people who've never had to present themselves before but have to because of the cost-of-living crisis—and here we have a government spending $40 million on advertising, on spin doctors, on marketing. What a disgrace! Those Labor members who were in that caucus who made that decision should take a good long hard look at themselves tonight. The public know. They will remember, and they will vote accordingly at the next election.

I too rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024 and cognate bills. The purpose of the three appropriation bills is to release money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the annual services of the government. We don't stand in the way of that. I can tell you that it's very good to be speaking about this today. I wanted to speak on the appropriation bill following the May budget, but I didn't get the chance. There were many speakers lined up who didn't get the chance because the government ended the debate. It was incredibly inappropriate that we members, who are elected and are sent here to speak on behalf of our constituents, didn't get to talk about the most important thing—the appropriation of taxpayer money and the expenditure of such. So it's nice to be able to speak today—although I did reflect on the speech I was going to deliver last May and what I have to say today, and, unfortunately, it's devastating to report that things have got worse and are getting worse. If regional Australia was a dartboard, the walls around it would be full of holes. The government aren't spending less; they're spending a lot more, but they're spending less in regional and rural Australia.

When I go around my wonderful electorate of Nicholls—one of my favourite parts of my job—people will ask, 'Are you enjoying it?' I say: 'Yes. Parts of it are difficult, but there are parts that are enjoyable.' One of the most enjoyable things is talking to schoolchildren, mostly in primary schools, and having a conversation about what it is we do up here and what the Australian democracy is all about. That leads to a fascinating conversation. It boils down to two major things we're here for. Firstly, we're here to enact legislation. I explain that to kids; I say: 'We make rules and we try to balance things. We try to balance the rights of people, the responsibilities of people and the good of society, and we have debates about that.' The people of Nicholls have sent me here, and the people of Bendigo have sent you here, Deputy Speaker Chesters. We are probably from different ideological traditions, but we have debates about what those rules should be. That's a form of democracy that has seen Australia prosper as one of the most successful nations, if not the most successful nation, on the globe.

We also appropriate money in a variety of ways from taxpayers, and we decide how to spend it. That's also a massive responsibility. It's our job to work out what's appropriate to take from people and businesses, and it's our job to make sure we spend that money wisely, efficiently and on things and investments that are going to lead to the advancement of our nation and our economy. At the moment, we're all talking about cost of living because it's the biggest issue for people. When I'm in the chamber, I hear, 'We're giving people money for this, we're giving people money for that, making this cheaper and making that cheaper', which is, essentially, using taxpayer money to hand out money. That's a debate we can have, and I'm not opposed to that in general. We're also talking about tax cuts, which our side sees as redistribution and the other side sees as fairness. But I would remind those opposite that the tax system is designed not as a tool necessarily of redistribution but for providing for Australia's economic future.

We're not talking about the root cause of the cost of living, and I find that really frustrating. We're skirting around the edges. The success of Australia's economy is based on the success of Australia's businesses, and that means the success of Australia's entrepreneurship—people who invest money to try and make something that didn't exist before, whether it be a good or a service, and sell that in a competitive way that improves the lives of Australians and/or makes us internationally competitive. That's what we're here to do. There's a safety net to make sure that people don't suffer. I take the point of the member for Menzies, who said that if you were sitting in the chamber listening to the Labor members you'd think we'd been living in some sort of Dickensian world where everyone is doing absolutely terribly; they're doing worse now than they were under the coalition government! Generally, modern Australia has been a partnership between the employer—so businesses—the capital and the labour. And that partnership is essential. The businesses can't do it without the labour, and the labour won't exist if the businesses aren't successful and profitable. I think, with the policies of this government, we are moving away from that. I think that's regrettable and it will have poor long-term impacts on our nation.

I will give you some examples—firstly, on regional infrastructure. If we're going to take taxpayers' money from them, it can't just be a redistribution exercise: 'You can have some here,' and 'You can have some there.' There's got to be a strategic approach: 'What could we invest in that would make the Australian economy perform better?' If you were in a business, you'd say, 'Okay, we've got a surplus,' or, 'We've got a profit,' or, 'We've got a certain amount of money we can expend.' Smart business people would say: 'How would we spend that money to make our business more competitive and more profitable into the future?' Now, we argue that regional infrastructure can do that, because regional Australia is the engine room of the nation's economic prosperity. Whether it be agriculture, manufacturing or mining, a lot of it happens in regional Australia.

That's not to dismiss the people who live in metropolitan areas of this country; they make a great contribution, too. But, because of the bulk of population being in those areas, we sometimes feel that they get an inordinate voice in this nation through our democracy. That's why we're here, from the regions—to fight for the people who live there and to explain the economic benefit that comes out of those places.

Now, regional infrastructure is a real passion of mine. In my previous job, I worked for an organisation called the Committee for Greater Shepparton, and we tried to advocate regional infrastructure being built. I must say, not coming from a particularly partisan background as a young person, I had a lot of admiration for the Hawke and Keating governments; they made me impressed with Labor for a while, but that was cured a bit later on. When I was the CEO of the Committee for Greater Shepparton, I found the coalition government really responsive on building and funding regional infrastructure.

The Echuca-Moama Bridge was a fantastic bridge project. That bridge over the Murray River, linking those twin towns, improved the connectivity from southern New South Wales to that part of the west of my electorate. That has made a huge difference. That was funded by the coalition—really pushed, particularly, by then Minister Chester, who I want to congratulate on that. I spoke in this place the other day of many of my opponents at the last election—not the Labor Party; other opponents, at my last election—whose platform was 'We need to kick out the Nats because they don't do anything for our electorate.' And what was the platform—the literal platform—that they used for that? They stood on top of the Echuca-Moama Bridge—$360 million for which had been delivered by the National Party.

Be that as it may, there's been some significant rail infrastructure, which is moving more professional people to Shepparton because not only have we got better trains between Shepparton and Melbourne but we're going to have extra services. That was delivered by my friend the member for Riverina when he was in his portfolio in the previous government.

There are other building blocks of the economy that people in metropolitan areas might not appreciate. I come back to the agricultural production of the Murray-Darling Basin and what that has meant for the Australian nation for over 100 years: the construction of channels which take water from the Murray and Goulburn Rivers in my electorate, through a network of farms, and deliver that water, so that areas that once grew very little now grow pastures, lucerne crops and corn crops, that all feed the dairy industry, and fruit crops—peaches, apples and pears. I'm so proud that that's a part of Australia that I represent. But, for those people to continue doing that, they need a government that says, 'Okay; we're going to spend money and make rules,' as I say to those grade 6 kids, 'that increases your ability to do that, because it's good for Australia, it's good for our own people here and it's also good because we export a lot of that produce to China, to South-East Asia, to South Asia and to the Middle East.' That provides sustainable jobs for people and it provides economic income for this nation.

So what do the Labor Party do about it when they come to government? Based on ideological tangents, the Minister for the Environment and Water has decided to rip up what was an agreement under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and basically make it much harder for our horticulturalists and dairy farmers to grow the food that sustains Australia and provides export dollars for this nation. It threatens small communities that have sprung up because of hard work, because of the combination between capital and labour. Someone put their own money into a farm or a factory. People from all over the world came to work on that farm or in that factory and create something really special. There are communities across my electorate—Numurkah, Nathalia, Stanhope, Echuca, Cobram, Shepparton—where that Australian miracle has happened. Capital has been invested, labour has turned up and everyone's done well out of it. The people who invested the capital have done well because these are profitable businesses because this was back in a time when government said, 'Our responsibility is to make sure we've got the building blocks for you to be profitable.' The people who worked in those industries were winners because they moved to a beautiful part of regional Australia, bought their own houses, raised their families in caring and nurturing communities and have been part of something really special. Those people are proud to have worked in places like SPC, Bega and Kagome.

That's all threatened by this government's attitude towards agriculture policy and water policy in the new, brutal Murray-Darling Basin Plan regime. It's also threatened by the IR laws. What I was talking about just a few moments ago in relation to the success that I've seen growing up in the seat of Nicholls—and this is the case anywhere in Australia—is that it's the partnership between capital and labour. 'I do well if you work hard and throw yourself into this job.' That's what capital says. Labour says, 'I've still got a job if you're profitable.' That partnership is what it's all about, and it's worked so well in the Goulburn Valley and other parts of Australia. But what we're seeing now is bringing the conflict back—the mean, nasty employer is trying to screw over the poor little worker. The modern Australia that we were moving towards where it's a partnership and the employer wants to keep good workers, so they give flexibility but say, 'I might need to give you a phone call on the weekend if something happens and I don't know what's going on'—all of those arrangements and agreements are being torn apart by this conflict that's being created out of nothing. I think that's regrettable and I think our economy will suffer for it. I hope we can rejig our direction as a nation and get back to productivity when we're talking about the economy.

What a fantastic contribution to end on productivity, a point that I will take further. I am going to make the obvious observation and repeat what has been said. The incursion of conflict into a conversation on productivity is something that is detrimental to all Australians across the workforce and all Australians full stop. How we do what we need to do, how we get together and produce what we need to produce, relies upon a conversation between employees and employers. In speaking on this appropriation bill, the context the last budget was delivered in, with the IR changes since and the regulatory framework we've seen—and I want to speak to a lot of these things—has led to the growth of this conflict again. I think it is something that is well worth us raising.

I want to address what is clearly becoming the biggest issue in the Australian economy, which is: how do we improve productivity levels? It is often pointed out that over about 20 years we have seen a downturn in productivity in Australia and in other Western countries as well, but there is nothing that compares to the significant downturn we have seen over the last 18-odd months, where productivity in Australia fell through the floor and was at a level we had never recorded before. We have never seen this level of productivity drop. It's important that we address this.

I think the Australian people rightly recognise real wages as an important issue. This government ran on the agenda of raising real wages. But, as has been pointed out repeatedly and was again by the RBA in presenting to the economics committee just last week, productivity is crucial to real wages growth. There are historical links between them. For generations we have seen the labour movement acknowledge the need for productivity. We have seen employers acknowledge the need for productivity improvements as a means of increasing real wages. I always point to: what does 'good' look like? I point back again to the Howard era, 1996 to 2007, when real wages grew by 21.5 per cent in a time when we saw high levels of productivity. There is no surprise that those two things went together. We need to look at the policy settings that were deployed during that time to understand how we got those results.

There are a lot of things that can impact on productivity. We just heard the RBA governor talk on some of these—skills, investment, taxation policy and IR. All of these things have an impact on productivity. But my biggest concern has been and remains that, unless those policy levers are used, the default for driving productivity is going to be unemployment. That is a significant concern for all of us when in an economic situation like we are.

I want to address some of these areas. The hope amongst economists is that, having had this catastrophic fall in productivity in Australia, we can normalise and rebound. When the RBA suggested that, they admitted they were being very, very optimistic that productivity would normalise and come back. When pressed on what was in their modelling that would drive productivity, they admitted that assumptions around skills and business investment were unlikely to play any key role in driving productivity in the short term. In fact, while they may have long-term impacts, there is no significant change in the skills and investment policy settings that we see today to previous, so they don't expect that to be any significant driver in that normalisation process. If we go back and we look at that, what are some of the things that have changed during this term of government? What is the new norm? If we are able to normalise, what will that new norm look like? I think we can see that each one of these is a downward pressure or at best a neutral situation.

We talk about business investment in new technology. One of the policy settings that the previous government deployed with great success when it came to driving productivity was the instant asset write-off. When we talk about technology, we need to see that not all technology is made by Apple or exists in the cloud. Sometimes it's a coffee machine that uses less water or heats up faster. Sometimes it's a tractor that doesn't stop as often as my uncle's does. Sometimes it's a small improvement, and the investment in that by small business has a cumulative impact. You're not looking at revolutionary steps forward in productivity; you're looking at small gains that could be made from one-off investments. So, facing the realisation that productivity had fallen off a cliff, as we saw last year, the coalition called on the government to restore tax relief for small businesses and boost productivity by extending the instant asset write-off and to extend the value of assets eligible to $30,000. Sadly, the government didn't take up these measures. This was a policy setting that has been deployed well. It has been acknowledged everywhere as a productivity driver, but the government hasn't chosen to take that up. I hope they will look at that again because, without that investment and without that incentive to invest, we're leaving that lever alone.

If we speak about skills, one of the saddest pieces of information we saw come out last week was that the number of people in apprenticeships and traineeships is 50,000 fewer than during the Morrison government. That could be responsive to drivers of the day. What's important to point out is that, even if we take that as a normalisation pressure itself, it's still fewer skilled people entering the workforce. It reinforces the conversation with the RBA. Skills are unlikely to be a driver of productivity in the short term and, certainly, in the medium term. It may well come again in the long term, if that number can be turned around, but it's not there for us at the moment.

With regard to technology, I'll refer to an article in the Australian by Patrick Commins:

An adviser to the Fair Work Commission says the next generation of Australians may not be better off than their parents because of "abysmally low" productivity, and the Albanese government's industrial relations reforms threaten unforeseen consequences with little … pay-off for the vast bulk of workers.

In terms of the future that we're seeing created for us and the threats to productivity, the important point is that they're not just threats to us now. If we are unable to address productivity now and turn that number around, the impact is not just going to be felt by us now but by future generations. What it condemns us to is continued lower real wage growth, which is what we have seen. Real wages have not been growing.

Further into the article is where we get a feel for economists' views on the current policy settings with regard to productivity. The article says:

With little obvious appetite for meaningful reform in areas such as taxation, and with workplace changes promising a less flexible workplace … coming generations may no longer be better off than the ones that preceded them.

If we look at the IR legislation that has come through, across the board, there is nowhere in that suite of legislation where we can point to something that has a genuine upward pressure on productivity. In fact, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the expectation is that the IR reforms that have come through do very little to increase productivity and will drive them lower. An article in the AFR says, 'In both tax and IR, poor process and playing politics has produced bad policy outcomes.' In the IR space, unfortunately, we've seen from this government steps that are quite regressive in terms of the workforce situation it's trying to apply. There is no doubt that IR reform is an important part of a Labor or a coalition government's agenda, but, when the policy settings are driving productivity down in a period like this, they will have long-term impacts. My genuine concern is that we have missed the opportunity to drive skills investment and to address tax reform. The clear link established in the 2008 OECD report is that high tax at a corporate level and on income tax has a negative pressure on productivity. o, when we don't address tax reform in a meaningful way, and when we have IR legislation that goes negative, the only pathway to recovering productivity left to us is unemployment.

I refer to another view, that of Innes Willox in the AFR:

Australian chief executives are looking to the year ahead more anxious and uncertain about the national economy than they have felt for more than a decade.

The government often talks about a wasted decade. It would appear that businesses viewed the last decade quite differently. The quote continues:

This focus on productivity-enhancing measures ranks far ahead of expected funding of capital expenditure and research and development.

Businesses note that they need to find productivity. But the concern is that, the more we invest in technology, the worse off the employment trajectory will be. What we're talking about in technology for some of these big tech corporations is AI. We're talking about replacing the workforce. This is not beneficial for employment figures.

I can't help but be drawn to this point that, without a clear plan to address productivity with anything other than rising unemployment, the future gets bleaker and bleaker. It's a question of who the future gets bleaker for, because largely what we're talking about is entry-level workers in the workforce. They're likely to be lower paid and likely to be less educated. We've already seen a shrinking manufacturing sector for decades, and now further pressures on these jobs mean that the prospects are very grim.

We're a country that has relied upon social mobility. We rely upon that not just for those going through school but afterwards, and that requires jobs for people who work with their hands outside of air-conditioned offices. That means people who didn't get qualifications while young but still have the willingness to work hard and push ahead. Pressures on their employment levels in a situation like this are incredibly difficult, particularly for regional communities, like mine, that simply have a different spread of workforce than you will see in city electorates. In Groom we are heavily reliant on mining, manufacturing and transport. We're a place that does all the work that leaves you with dirt underneath your fingernails and calluses on your hands. These are exactly the jobs that are being put at risk when you put the wrong policy settings in place.

Without a key focus, without a policy direction that addresses productivity, the Australian people are being left in the lurch. There is little hope on the horizon that we see from the government, with its continued drive towards regressive IR legislation that puts the Fair Work Commission between the employer and the employee. I think that's probably one of the hardest pills to swallow. We've come to accept that enterprise bargaining was a vehicle whereby agreements could be made between employers and those in the workplace directly, but under this government we have seen continued moves to push the Fair Work Commission between those two groups. As we've seen in the Productivity Commission report, when you move away from individual contracts, you drive lower productivity.

Of all the challenges this government faces, none are greater than returning our productivity to prepandemic levels. Unfortunately, where we stand today is that, even if we are, as the RBA governor optimistically puts, capable of normalising productivity levels, the new norm with the policy settings that we now see in place is lower than what the norm was previously—be it in skills, where we see fewer apprenticeships and traineeships, or be it in investment, where we see lower investment in new technologies. We see taxation policy and IR reform that depowers individuals. The forecast for productivity growth is grim.

I rise to speak in relation to the wild storms which have caused enormous damage and had a huge impact on my home state of Victoria over the past 24 hours. Deputy Speaker Chesters, I know you, as a regional member, are well aware of the impact of these storms right across our regional communities. Firstly, I do want to acknowledge the tragic loss of life which has occurred in Mirboo North, with the death of a local farmer as a result of the storms. For those members in this place whose communities are still facing danger right now, I pass on my enormous sympathies, and my thoughts are with you. Obviously, there are bushfires still active in the communities surrounding the seats of Wannon and Mallee, bordering the seat of Ballarat and also near Bendigo. I want to acknowledge that we have lost a life already, as well as to appeal to those people now involved in the clean-up—householders and residents—to please take care. The clean-up after these major storm events is often as dangerous as the storm itself. There have been many occasions in the past where trees have fallen on people who have been involved in the clean-up activities, so please take care as you undertake that clean-up work.

In that same vein, I need to acknowledge the extraordinary effort of our emergency services crews, our volunteers from groups like the SES and the CFA, the professional crews, the shire contractors, the shire workers themselves, people involved in the clean-up activities, and the crews that are out there right now trying to restore power and telecommunications networks across the state. These people are out there doing an incredible job, working against the clock in cleaning up after nature's ferocious storm swept across our state.

It's worth reflecting that we got to this point as a direct result of large transmission lines coming down, which tripped four units at Loy Yang in my electorate of Gippsland and forced load shedding and disruption to power across hundreds of thousands of homes. As we stand here tonight, there are still thousands of Victorians experiencing another night without power and with unreliable communications. It's also worth reflecting that the Loy Yang Power Station is still an incredibly important part of the energy mix in my home state of Victoria. In fact, we still receive in Victoria in the order of 60 per cent of our generating capacity from a brown-coal-fired power station in Latrobe Valley. It's an incredibly important part of the energy mix in my home state. In the light of this storm event, it's inevitable there'll be conversations about energy security and reliability. I am concerned that there is a reckless rush to transition to renewable energy at the expense of reliable baseload energy. We need to make sure we get the balance right. By no means am I someone who doesn't believe in the importance of renewable energy, but I also understand you need to have a reliable and affordable source of energy for households, for families trying to meet their family budget, and for business and industry and manufacturing. They need a reliable and affordable source of energy.

We've got to learn some lessons from storm events like this. The conversation now in large parts of regional Australia is becoming quite heated around the transmission lines associated with establishing new renewable energy locations. Part of that conversation is around the fact that there is no plan whatsoever to put those transmission lines underground. The very cause of this dramatic disruption to Victoria today has been the major failure of transmission lines causing the Loy Yang units to trip and disrupting power supplies right across the state. We need to have this conversation about undergrounding transmission lines. It was one of the recommendations of the Black Saturday bushfire royal commission. We understand as regional people that quite often bushfires are starting as a result of powerlines being disrupted, sparking and causing fires, which then spread and cause enormous damage, including loss of life. There's a huge logistical challenge on right now right across parts of my electorate of Gippsland to simply restore power because of the damage caused by trees falling over powerlines and the disruption that is then causing the community.

This disruption is something that people need to think about. People need to think about how these disruptions occur. When the power goes out you can no longer operate the petrol bowser, so fuel becomes a problem in some of my towns. When the power goes out, the EFTPOS machines aren't working either because the telecommunications network is compromised, so people who don't have cash are having trouble doing transactions. When the power goes out, you have issues at supermarkets with a rush on food. When the power goes out, householders with food in the fridge or food in the freezer start to worry about the wastage. These are all important considerations with an event like this. I do wish the crews all the luck in the world as they go about trying to re-establish power to vast numbers of impacted communities, which are almost inevitably some of the most remote locations and smaller country towns in Victoria.

I know for a fact that there are towns and communities in my electorate right now who don't even have access to triple 0. If there were an emergency, they wouldn't be able to call triple 0 to get some help. So I appeal to people in my community who may be listening on the radio or something else to make sure you check in on your friends and family. Do a welfare check on those in your neighbourhood to make sure that they're okay. Check on your friends at this difficult time.

We are very dependent on our telecommunications. Some will have battery backup; others won't. They're supplying generators to try and restore the power. But, without the energy being provided to those telecommunications towers, a whole range of other impacts are felt throughout the community, and there are still thousands of Victorians, thousands of Gippslanders, who are without power tonight.

On the bright side, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, as you well know, regional people are practical, resilient people. We've been through very similar events in the past, and most people have a bit of a backup plan. But there are some lessons here for the Victorian government to learn. Whose stupid idea was it to introduce a ban on gas connections to new households in Victoria? What a spectacularly stupid idea by the environment minister. Right now in Gippsland, with no power, people are using their gas stoves. They've got an alternative source of energy. But in the future, if there are no gas cooktops in these houses, when there's no power, what will people do? We've got to plan a more resilient system. It's complete madness for the Victorian minister to be banning gas connections to new households in Victoria and making people dependent on only one form of energy.

Those on this side of the House are determined to play a practical role in the energy debate in this country. We understand how important a reliable and affordable source of energy is not just for Victoria but for every state. What we saw yesterday in Victoria, ironically, was that there was plenty of wind around, but there was too much wind, so the wind turbines didn't work. Wind turbines simply don't work when you exceed the specifications. Again, having a weather dependent form of energy in the future, without the reliability of the baseload supply from other sources such as coal or gas, is complete economic and, I would say, social madness which will cause enormous problems, going forward.

I will give you an example from a friend of mine I was just talking to tonight. He'd dropped into one of the hardware stores and he reported to me—what a surprise—they'd sold out of generators. People have been down there today buying generators. They've sold out of any camping gas cookers. Again, people are preparing to be without power for an extended period of time. The staff at the hardware store were showing customers around by torchlight, and they were giving them handwritten receipts and writing down the details of their credit cards. People without cash were still able to buy things, and I thank the hardware store operators for doing that to allow the economy to still function. But at some point they're going to have to reconcile all those purchases. Handwritten receipts will have to do for now. I think we're finding cash is king in Gippsland right now. A lot of people are relying now on cash to make even the most basic purchases.

So we do need a resilient system when it comes to energy. The events in Victoria over the last 24 hours have certainly exposed some of the fragilities of—and perhaps shown a lot of us to not take for granted—the systems we have in place, because, when they go down, it becomes very difficult for our community to function. We've got to have this debate without the zealotry. Just forget about the zealotry. There are people at the extremes of the debate on both sides. Forget the zealots. Work out practical systems that are reliable and affordable for the Australian community.

Speaking of zealotry, I want to use my remaining time in the debate tonight to reflect a little bit on the native hardwood timber industry in the state of Victoria, or the former native hardwood timber industry in the state of Victoria. The decision made by the Andrews government and endorsed by the Allan government was based on science—political science. There wasn't an ounce of environmental science behind the decision to ban the harvesting of all native hardwood timber in my home state of Victoria.

Deputy Speaker Wilkie, your home state of Tasmania has a third of the timber available to it that Victoria has—a third. Victoria's got three times as much timber on public land. There are now logs being harvested in Tasmania, floated across Bass Strait, processed in Victoria into high-value products and sold into the Melbourne market. So supply is still being met. Demand is still there for this product, but it is complete environmental madness to think that Victoria taking timber from other places is the best way to manage our future demand for hardwood timber in my home state. When it comes to timber, there are two choices: you use your own wood or you use someone else's. The Victorian government, in an act of complete political bastardry, shut down the entire industry in six months and committed Victoria to just taking wood from other places. Now Victoria brings in timber from Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland, and our net imports of timber vastly exceed our exports. We are just taking timber now from countries with lower environmental protocols and selling it off in the Melbourne market.

Right now there is a very impressive project in the heart of Melbourne: the St Kilda Pier. It is a beautiful project, a great project, a multimillion dollar project. The timber for that project is coming from North Queensland and the Northern Territory. It is madness to think that a state with three times the timber resources of Tasmania will not be using any of the hardwood timber on public land into the future. I'm sure that at some point in the future reality will strike and a new government with half a brain in its head will work out a policy that allows the hardwood timber industry to be restored, but who in the private sector is going to invest in that industry, going forward, with the risk of a state government potentially shutting them down again? Who is going to put the money up?

The big issue is not only the loss of jobs, which is significant enough. It's not only the fact that we're now raiding other countries and other states for our timber supply. The other big loss is the very people I talked about in my first comments here today: the volunteers at the CFA and the SES—the people out there with chainsaws, clearing roads to get access to properties. These are people with practical bush skills. When they lose their jobs, they don't stay around. They've got no reason to stay around. If there's no job for them anymore, these people with practical bush skills will leave my community. We're already seeing that. People with skills in the bush, people who can use heavy equipment, people who have knowledge and understanding of how the forest can be managed—they're going to leave, and they are leaving, because there are no jobs for them in the hardwood timber industry.

Particularly in times of emergency, you can't replace them with someone who just jumps in a bulldozer once or twice a year over summer to clear a firebreak. We find that, during emergency situations, the contractors who work in the timber industry are the ones who have the skills to keep our communities safe. They have the practical bush skills. They know how to use the harvest equipment and the bulldozers—the large equipment—to keep our communities safe. Those people won't be there anymore.

Those are the social, economic and environmental consequences of a political decision to shut down the hardwood timber industry for one reason only: Greens preferences in the city. There is no science to justify shutting down the entire hardwood timber industry in Victoria, only political science. It was all about gutless Labor MPs in my home state of Victoria not having the courage to stand up for blue-collar workers. Not one of them in the federal or state parliament lower house had the guts to stand up for blue-collar workers, because they've sold their souls for Greens preferences. That has been the most appalling decision I've seen a government make in my 15 years as a member of parliament. There is no logic behind it, and we're seeing massive social and economic disruption in my community of Gippsland. The environmental consequences of a poorly maintained natural bush reserve in the future will be felt by all of us.

Leaving the bush unattended and unmanaged is a recipe for disaster. All of the bushfires which occurred in the Black Summer in my community started on public land. They all started by natural causes—lightning—when the bush was dry after a long season of drought weather. It's poorly managed public land that is the worst neighbour to have if you're living in a community in Gippsland. If they don't have resources on the ground to do that practical work, my communities are put at greater risk. I say as a matter of philosophy and a matter of principle that, if my community is expected to be the custodian of a vast public land estate, it should get jobs associated with managing that public land estate, whether it's through a sustainable and world-class timber industry or natural resource management activities to keep our communities safe. I thank the House.

One of the first questions I would like to ask is: where is the government's bill to appropriate $2½ million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to continue to pay for the next stage of Mulgoa Road—the upgrade that my electorate so desperately needs? We already know the answer. It will never happen under the Albanese Labor government, after they axed funding for local infrastructure projects right across the board in my community and right throughout Western Sydney. Mulgoa Road's next upgrade was going to widen lanes at three key junctions to provide much-needed traffic relief. The government doesn't care about Glenmore Park mums and dads getting home sooner and safer. The government doesn't care about Regentville seniors who need help to take their grandkids to and from footy training during peak hour or to pick them up from school. And they certainly don't care about Penrith parents jumping off the M4 to get home to make dinner for their family. This government doesn't care about seniors in Jamisontown who might miss important doctor appointments because of the enormous amount of traffic, continual traffic, on Mulgoa Road.

Over $200 million for Mulgoa Road is only a fraction of the damage the Labor government is doing to my part of Western Sydney by not delivering on infrastructure commitments. In fact, there are over $5 billion of funds promised by this government in the mid-year budget of October 2022 for needed infrastructure and transport projects, for the futureproofing of the growth of Western Sydney, that have just gone—$5 billion cut from Western Sydney infrastructure.

How much?

Five billion dollars of much-needed infrastructure right across the board to support our growing community, including the Western Sydney international airport. The infrastructure minister ripped this away, and it's an absolute shame.

It's a pity they have taken away funding to review upgrades for Luddenham Road to the airport. These are key road projects to do with Australia's newest international airport. The community of Luddenham are crying out for information and support from the Labor government, the infrastructure minister and the infrastructure department. Rather than help one of the most impacted communities adjacent to Western Sydney airport, the Labor infrastructure minister cut planning funding to upgrade Luddenham Road, which would have helped freight and nearby locals get around the airport. Unbelievably, the infrastructure minister cut funding for the M7-M12 interchange. But—wait for this—this road wasn't in planning; this road had already started. They've cut the funding, and the Commonwealth are no longer involved in a major project that had already started.

Sounds like Queensland!

That's Western Sydney, New South Wales—the forgotten region, according to this Labor government. The project would have seen the M7 widened, and, importantly, would have connected the new M12 and assisted with links to the airport. This is not a tiny little local airport; this is an international airport of significance for our whole country.

Where are the tens of millions of dollars with which we were going to upgrade our community car parks in St Marys and Kingswood, in this growing Western Sydney? They've been cut. St Marys has a heavy rail train which is over capacity daily, and St Marys is also going to get a new metro site; it's the key link between Sydney and Western Sydney airport. The community surrounding St Marys is growing, yet the government has decided to cut its car park. How do the locals get to and from the airport in a growing populated area? Penrith City Council had already spent funds in planning for this car park, and, likewise with Kingswood, the Labor government has cut funding for their car park as well.

We also had planning money for Werrington Arterial stage 2 slashed. The planning was going to look at ways the road corridor would be improved and deal with congestion, with locals going to and from St Marys and Marsden Park and working hubs in the little business hubs around that area. It would have reviewed links to Werrington Road and the Great Western Highway for upgrades. The community around that area have for years been saying they desperately need this upgrade. It would have helped the constant logjam being faced by those living in Cambridge Gardens, Cambridge Park, Werrington, Werrington County, Werrington Downs and along Dunheved Road.

This is a vital corridor in the heart of my Lindsay electorate. At the 2019 election, I secured over $60 million funding to upgrade this Penrith City Council road. Throughout the last period of government I was able to double the commitment and get the full amount, $127 million, for the full upgrade of the road, because the state government didn't chip in. Unfortunately, the Labor Party, desperate for votes in Lindsay at the last election, promised that when in government they would fast-track the development of Dunheved Road and its upgrade. They even allotted funds to this during the election campaign. But here we are, in 2024, waiting for construction to begin. Penrith City Council officials told me that the road could not be fast-tracked, so, again, this was just another Labor lie.

The community desperately needs the upgrade of Dunheved Road to begin. It was 2019 when they secured the funds. The funds are there; the building just has to start. Labor coming in and making a promise that they knew they couldn't stick to was real desperation. It was really sad for my community. It's a pity that the Albanese government just doesn't care enough about Western Sydney to really invest, as opposed to stripping away funds from our growing community. Western Sydney represents the Australian dream, where you can get a house with enough space for a growing family. It is a beautiful place to live, in my part of the world. New homes continue to pop up to support the many young people and our newest citizens to take part in the Australian dream. It is so unfortunate that these Aussies are being let down by the Albanese Labor government.

The need for more infrastructure is just going to grow. Cutting more than $5 billion will hinder how long it will take to get to job sites in the morning for our tradies. It will impact how long it will take for Penrith residents to get to work in the Penrith CBD—or beyond, to Parramatta and the city—and our new aerotropolis, which is only a couple of years away. It will impact the whole of Western Sydney and the way people travel across the region for kids' sport on the weekend—for those who can afford to still go, which brings me to my next point about the cost-of-living crisis that is impacting so many families.

You just have to step out onto the streets of my electorate for somebody to come up and speak with you about how hard it is out there right now with groceries, petrol, mortgage and rents. Grocery increases are causing Foodbank services in Lindsay to more than double their regular distribution. I know this is a common story right now, right across our country, but we should not be getting used to this story. It is dire out there. We need to be doing something about it. 'We' need to be doing something about it? The Labor government needs to be doing something about it, because they have the levers and the mechanisms to make change. There are dual-income families lining up at the Penrith Community Kitchen and Mama Lana's—extraordinary local community groups who do so much for people in need.

I know my Nationals and regional Liberal colleagues have been talking about the impact of the Labor government's remodelling of the fresh food tax and water changes causing issues in the market. Let's take the agriculture minister's rejig of the Biosecurity Protection Levy. That will cause Aussie farmers to have to pay more, for the biosecurity costs of international importers. This will impact everyone. The farmers in the semirural parts of my electorate—whether in Luddenham, Londonderry or Agnes Banks—will not be happy with this next hit on them from Labor.

We're building an airport in Western Sydney to make it easier for local Western Sydney producers to get their products to the world. It could be extraordinary, yet locals will be slugged with these costs. Then they'll be passed on to the consumers, who are already struggling to pay for their groceries. This is more nonsensical Labor Party ideology impacting Aussies and impacting our local small businesses. Again, we have the truckies being taxed, which is impacting the many, many local truckies in my electorate. Does the Labor government understand that these added costs on businesses which provide our food and deliver essential products are part of what is fuelling this cost-of-living crisis?

The Assistant Treasurer, in his second reading speech, had the audacity to proclaim a surplus that this government is responsible for and that Australians should be so grateful for what is being done for us. The previous government started the immense budgetary repairs this nation needed. That was the coalition government. Then we were hit with a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. Those opposite seem to forget this. The interest rate increases have slammed Western Sydney families. 60 Minutes aired locals who are now facing pressures on weekend sport and their kids going to school. They are having to cut back. It is having a real impact on young people as well. A mother from Londonderry who is so financially stressed wrote to me saying she's thinking of selling up and moving to the bush because Western Sydney is no longer affordable. Rental pressures are hitting low-income earners and young people right across Lindsay, including in St Mary's. What about the $275 reduction in energy bill costs? That seems to have been forgotten by everyone in the Albanese Labor government. It certainly has not been forgotten by people in my community of Lindsay.

Over half of the Lindsay community travel to work by car. This is higher than the New South Wales average and is due to a lack of public transport options and the nature of work. Again, it is extraordinary that infrastructure such as roads and also commuter car parks is being cut. These car users include people like tradies that need to get to work and build those homes for the growing population in Western Sydney, people who are working from home. We have a hospital in my electorate which is one of the biggest employers. People are travelling there as well. There are teachers, nurses and people working at our local university.

These infrastructure cuts, these promises and inflation impacting on the family budget are all issues the government actually has the levers to address. They just aren't. Why aren't they doing it? Why aren't they trying to help people in my community? I think the fact is the Albanese Labor government simply doesn't care.

I rise tonight to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024 and express my concern about how the Albanese Labor government seems to have abandoned regional Australia and particularly my electorate in a whole range of ways. In some ways, I can't believe it's on purpose. I think it's out of just a lack of understanding and ignorance about how things work.

One little program I was particularly proud of and that I was involved in way back in 2013 was the Stronger Communities Program. Any member would know the benefit of those small grants—$150,000 per electorate. Those small grants that went to sporting clubs, service clubs and the like were so well received. It wasn't a lot of money, but in a small rural community it can free up a committee to actually do what they would like to do, whether it's coach a footy team or look after a local community service club. It does help them not having to raise those funds. That's been abandoned.

The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program was a great boon to communities through local government. It now no longer exists. If you drive right around Australia, including in my electorate, you can see fantastic projects that were funded under this scheme. It's gone.

On the program that is particularly close to my heart, Inland Rail, the minister has been completely incompetent. The minister commissioned Kerry Schott to do a review. The Schott report was critical of some aspects, largely at the management level and the board level. The Schott review clearly reinforced the business case—the need for the Inland Rail—and the importance of it going from Melbourne to Brisbane. For those who might not understand, the Inland Rail is an intermodal capital city link. It's designed to take the pressure off the highway system for that city-to-city freight that goes up and down—the truck that goes up and down the Newell Highway in my electorate every 70 seconds. The Inland Rail would save millions of tonnes of carbon. It's very efficient. One train would replace 150 trucks. That's the business case, from the outskirts of Melbourne to the outskirts of Brisbane. What's particularly exciting for my electorate, though, is it then gives a high-capacity, high-quality railway line for my exporters to send grain, cotton or other produce to port. At the moment, the link that the previous government funded, that connects the parts of the Inland Rail that are completed to the port of Newcastle, has already been a great boon to the grain growers in my electorate.

There is a bit of misunderstanding about Brisbane. There's this thought that there'll be no connection to the port of Brisbane and that there will be difficulty around that. But, once the Inland Rail gets to a point—and I think the current government might be looking at Ebenezer—with that link that would go from there to the Brisbane to Sydney line, there already is a standard gauge connection to the port of Brisbane. You can't double-stack grain or cotton or minerals, for that matter. So that connection will already be there.

For the minister to basically put on hold the project north of Narromine has created great uncertainty. There has been the removal of the funding for the grade separations that local councils fought so hard for. The one in Moree in particular was actually part of the original funding for Inland Rail, so it wasn't additional infrastructure spending that they could remove, but they did. The grade separation and the bridge that would cross the Newell Highway and the Inland Rail to the special activation precinct that is going to be built at Moree was a vital part of infrastructure that would eventually lead to a heavy vehicle ring road around Moree. In communities right through my electorate, there has been enormous commitment. Whether it is Moree council, Narrabri, Gilgandra or Narromine, they have all put in an enormous effort and an enormous amount of resources to get to this point. Now they're being told that it's going to be pushed back to 2027. It's just not acceptable.

You've got to understand that, on the strength of the announcements that Inland Rail was to be constructed, people have invested in trucks and earthmoving equipment. A large number of Indigenous people in Moree undertook training and were working very, very hard and very successfully on the completed Narrabri to North Star stage 1 section. They've all just been put on ice. They've gone from employment back onto unemployment because of this break in the progress. So I call on the government to get that project going again because, if it loses momentum, the possibility of doing this project in a timely manner just gets harder and harder. Sadly, despite my efforts and my offer to help—because I have an understanding of this project—the only interaction I've had from the government was when they tried to get me charged with trespass because I had the temerity to have a photograph taken on a level crossing near a railway line. That's the small-mindedness that we have to deal with.

I'll go to health and the changes to the distribution priority areas. For those who don't know, the DPA, or distribution priority area, program encouraged overseas trained doctors in particular, as part of their obligation, to go to a regional area. And it worked quite successfully. The first thing this government did was to open up distribution priority areas to peri-urban and large regional areas. The week that that was announced, Western Health—an area with small western towns—lost six doctors to places like Wollongong, Geelong and Newcastle, because there was no financial reason for those doctors to stay there. That has had an enormous impact on the health delivery for my town.

I've got to point out that the Parkes electorate is just under half of New South Wales. It has the second-highest Indigenous population, percentagewise, of any electorate in this House. My frustration is that there has been a lot of discussion from this government about helping the livelihood and welfare of Aboriginal people; at the same time, they're taking away all the projects, all the programs and all the funding that employ these people: Inland Rail; removing doctors through LRCI; taking 450 extra gigalitres of water from the Murray-Darling Basin—that production water. Who do you think is employed by that? What would be the biggest employer in a town like Moree? It's the irrigation industry. Who works in that industry? Aboriginal people. It's absolutely scandalous—not to mention the corporates. We have bank CEOs who won't work on Australia Day to show their affinity with Aboriginal people, while they close the branches at Lake Cargelligo, Warren, Gilgandra, Moree and Gunnedah. Who's impacted by that? Aboriginal people—particularly older people, who would struggle with the technology to go online. So the duplicity and double standards coming out of here, with ideology, pontificating about their greatness, while absolutely gutting the very people they say they represent, is scandalous.

There are the changes to aged care. With the best of intentions—and I don't want to have a crack at Minister Wells, because she's been personally quite helpful with some of the issues I've got—these issues have been caused by the changes to have 24/7 registered nurses in country aged-care facilities. So these facilities struggle with compliance. They're paying exorbitant wages for agency nurses to fly-in fly-out at towns like Broken Hill and Cobar. Last week in Broken Hill, in an effort to free up critical care beds, Far West health told 19 frail aged people that they had to move. I spoke to a person whose father has been told he has to go to Balranald, 450 kilometres away. He has dementia. His wife has dementia. They can't live at home; they can't live unsupervised. So here you have these people who've been together all their lives, and, for the last years or months of their lives, they're 450 kilometres apart! This is what happens when you have government policy that doesn't understand regional Australia—not to mention the attacks we saw on community pharmacy. Hopefully, we've seen some sanity come back.

There was the divisive nature of the Voice campaign. As I said, I've got the second-highest percentage of Aboriginal people in my electorate. They voted 80 per cent no. The Aboriginal people of Wilcannia, Bourke, Brewarrina, Moree—towns with very, very high Indigenous populations—said: 'No. We want to manage our own affairs. We don't want another bureaucracy in Canberra. We just want to be like everyone else.' In here, once again, I was accused of racism and all sorts of things. The Aboriginal people in my electorate are people. They have the same issues as everyone else. They want to educate their kids. They want to be able to see a doctor. They want to have somewhere for their parents to go when they can't look after themselves. They want a job. It got caught up in this ridiculous debate that absolutely divided families in my electorate.

On the water buybacks—water is life in my electorate. This is such an ideologically driven thing, because the 450 extra gigalitres wasn't part of the Basin Plan. One of the advantages of being in this place for a while is that you get a bit of a memory for what's gone on. The extra 450 gigs wasn't part of the Basin Plan. It wasn't part of the plan that was agreed upon in a bipartisan way. It wasn't part of the plan I voted on. It was a political fix for Senate votes in South Australia cooked up by Julia Gillard and the current Leader of the House, Tony Burke, in the lead-up to the 2013 election. It can't be delivered, but, basically, that water has now been removed. If you want to know what happens when water is removed from a community, I welcome anyone to come and visit me in Collarenebri. When Minister Wong purchased the water from Collymongle station, the biggest and probably only employer in the district closed down, and we went from being a prosperous community to being a welfare town.

It's a frustration—it really is a frustration. With the benefit of doubt, I don't think the Labor government is deliberately trying to attack my electorate, but inadvertently, through their lack of understanding and ignorance on every level that you'd like to mention, the people of my electorate are copping it. They're starting to come up to me in great despair. I haven't even touched on the IR laws, where some of the larger farms will need to have a union organiser. They are going to be trying to take over the shearing industry, which has prospered since the AWU declined. I could go on for much longer. I am terribly concerned. The sooner this government either wakes up to itself or moves on and lets someone that knows regional Australia come in and run the country, the better.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024 is an important bill to speak on. Spending money is one of the core functions of government, and how they do that has ramifications and significant impacts. We also know that, despite the size of the budget, how we spend it is crucial. We don't have unlimited resources.

So it's interesting that, today of all days, we look at government spending. We saw their announcement earlier today of about $14 million for food banks. That is important money. I'm lucky to have a lot of great food banks that I've been able to visit in my community. They play a crucial role and, unfortunately, are needed more than ever. I often think about the Mustard Tree Op Shop & Cafe in Lilydale. I visited them in May last year—it was quite a few months ago that I visited them. They have been in Lilydale for over 30 years. May last year was the biggest month on record for them for demand. It has only gotten worse since. I have been out there since May, and it has gotten worse since.

But it is interesting that, at the same time as this government has committed $14 million to food banks, we hear in Senate estimates that it has committed $40 million of taxpayer money to sell its broken promise on the stage 3 tax cuts. We have $14 million for food banks in a cost-of-living crisis, and we have $40 million of taxpayer money, as the Minister for Finance said in Senate estimates, to sell their broken promise for the stage 3 tax cuts. That example really shows everything that is wrong with the priorities of the Albanese government. It's why, after 20 months of the Albanese government, Australians are struggling so much with this cost-of-living crisis. There is a focus—a $40 million focus, as we found out today—on spin, optics and looking like they're doing something, but there is only a $14 million focus, which is a lot less, on actually giving money to food banks to make a tangible difference in my community and every community across the country. I think about $14 million, and that won't go very far across the country; it is very much a token effort. It is better than nothing—a bit like the stage 3 tax cuts of $15 a week in five months time—but not enough and not soon enough.

These are some of the challenges that we're facing, and a lot of the challenges we face are due to the decisions that have been made by the government. Government spending has a direct impact on inflation and on interest rates. If a government spends more, that drives up demand, drives up inflation and forces the RBA governor to increase interest rates. We've seen that, with 12 increases in interest rates since this government was elected. We talk about government spending, and we see the MYEFO reports that show the Labor government has spent, in the last 18 months, about $209 billion more than the coalition committed in its last budget. That's before we include the $45 billion in off-budget spending that's not part of that $209 billion; that's a cheap little accounting trick by the Treasurer to spend money but not put it in the budget. The reality in the real world and in an economy is: whether it's on budget or off budget, it still drives demand, still drives inflation and still forces the RBA governor to increase interest rates.

As economist Chris Richardson said recently in the AFR:

The rough trade-off is that interest rates would be a quarter of a percentage point lower than they'd otherwise have been if the government cut spending by about $6 billion over the coming year or if it raised taxes by about $9 billion … to leave the RBA (and hence borrowers) bearing the brunt of the inflation fight, as it allows the government to blame someone else for the pain that many are feeling.

As the new Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock, said in November last year:

… the remaining inflation challenge … is increasingly homegrown and demand driven.

No word about Putin there!

No word about Putin at all, Member for Fisher! She won't say it because she can't, and I understand and respect that, but you see $209 billion of spending and $45 billion in off-budget spending—that drives a lot of demand and a lot of homegrown demand. We can join the dots there on the RBA governor's words.

She also said:

While labour costs are a big part of the increase, huge increases in the cost of energy, rent, and insurance are all keeping inflation higher for longer. In the September inflation report, energy (utilities) prices increased more than 12% year-on-year and insurance premia increased more than 8% year-on-year.

A 12 per cent year-on-year increase in energy prices—well, that $275 reduction in power bills is well gone. We know why the Prime Minister was happy to make that commitment 97 times, I think it was, before the election and not one time after.

The Australian people know prices are not coming down; they're going up. This is what happens: you spend more, you don't actually have a plan to address cost of living, you commit $40 million to sell a plan of $15 a week in five months, and you give $14 million to food banks. When your priorities are wrong, it makes it harder and harder for the Australian people. An Australian who was on $55,000 when Labor came to government has seen their real buying power decrease by almost $4,000 because of the $209 billion in additional spending plus the $45 billion off budget. It's driving inflation and driving costs up.

Those opposite like to say: 'We've delivered a surplus. We've delivered a surplus, and that's solved all the problems.' There's a problem with a surplus: there's a headline, but there are two sides to how a budget surplus is delivered. There are increases in revenue, and there are decreases in spending. If the revenue was increasing, but the spending is also going up, even though it's not going up as much, it still drives inflation. The Treasurer likes to take credit for the surplus, but what he doesn't talk about is what's driving that surplus. The reality is that, as the budget papers confirm, it's increased revenues coming in. It's soaring iron ore and coal exports that are delivering the trade surplus. It's commodity prices that are helping to deliver that $4 billion surplus. As EY's chief economist, Cherelle Murphy, commented last year in May about the budget:

The $36.9 billion deficit projection for 2022-23 was revised to a modest $4.2 billion surplus … through a combination of higher company and personal income tax receipts and conservative commodity price forecasts. The surplus projection ends there, as positive cyclical forces fade and the economy slows.

The position of the Budget is expected to worsen after 2024-25 as tax receipts moderate, along with spending pressures across the forward estimates.

We've seen that those tax receipts have increased, and that's why we're likely to get another surplus this year. Dr Steven Kennedy, Secretary to the Treasury, has flagged in Senate estimates this week that the higher than assumed commodity prices are going to continue to increase government revenue. He's said that there are further upside risks to the tax receipts. He went on to say, 'Over the four-year forward estimates period, there was a $39.5 billion improvement, driven by soaring personal income taxes and company taxes.'

That is the detail that matters when we talk about a surplus in a high inflation environment. It is whether you're bringing demand out of the economy or whether you're continuing to feed demand into the economy. The Treasurer can stand in the House at question time and talk about a surplus, but it's not actually bringing inflation down because inflation is being driven by higher receipts on tax—your personal tax. The little trick this government played is that they're happy to change stage 3, but they don't talk about how they let the low- and middle-income tax offset lapse last year—the $1,500. Many people in my community and across the country in July and August last year were desperate for a tax return because the cost of living is so tough. When they put their tax return in, they were disappointed. They were disappointed because the $1,500 that they'd received in the previous years was no longer there. What had happened is the government made the decision to let the low- and middle-income tax offset lapse, which is fine. We didn't talk about it, because that was part of stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 of the tax cut package that they voted for in 2019.

An honourable member interjecting—

Yes, we did legislate that legislation, and then this government has shown in the last two weeks that they're prepared to change the legislation when it comes to tax. So they're prepared to change the legislation to give the Australian people $15 a week extra in five months, but this government wasn't prepared to change the legislation last year to give the Australian people $1,500 straightaway in July or August when they did their tax return, when they needed it.

This is what the Australian people know: everything has gone up under this government, despite the promises of the Prime Minister during the campaign. Food has gone up more than nine per cent. Housing has gone up more than 12 per cent. Electricity is up by 23 per cent, despite that promise to reduce bills by $275. Gas has gone up by more than 29 per cent, and every resident in Casey knows this when they get their bills or go to the grocery store. Energy and gas in particular are important because they hit the Australian people in two ways. They hit you when the bill comes in, but they hit you every time you go to the grocery store. I worked in food manufacturing for many years prior to this role, and energy was one of the largest costs in manufacturing our food. It wasn't just our largest cost; it was one of the largest costs in the materials that we bought. When you go into the supermarket, you need to understand that the food manufacturer is being hit with increased costs. I'm not going to defend Woolworths and Coles, but they've been hit with increased costs. Those coolrooms and distribution centres they have are incurring increased costs.

And it goes further back. Take corn chips as an example. The farmer that grows that corn is being hit with increased cost, and this all gets passed along the line so, when you get to the supermarket, you get groceries at a higher price. That's the reality. That is why it is so important that you bring energy prices down: because it affects the whole community. That's not even to talk about the community groups that are impacted: those sporting clubs, charities, food banks that have to pay those higher energy prices. This is what we've seen. The Prime Minister himself admitted at the National Press Club that their policies aren't working and they don't have the cost-of-living crisis under control. That's why he made the decision to break his word that he committed a hundred times to the Australian people. That's been the big change. The war in Russia and Ukraine was many years ago. It was there when he made these promises. What has changed is that this government doesn't have any solutions for the Australian people.

Everyone knows that. They know it when they put the petrol in their car. They know it when they have to pay for the supplies for their children's education, when they go to the grocery store, when their rates come in from council, when their rent is higher than last year and when their mortgage has gone up 12 times in the last 18 months.

I understand the member for Casey is the last speaker from the opposition on this group of bills. I thank them for their contribution and I sympathise with his confusion. It's very difficult for the member for Casey and all other members of the coalition to grasp the fact that we would deliver a surplus but not deliver coffee cups advertising the surplus! We're more focused on substance than the marketing.

But genuinely I'd like to thank all members who've contributed to the debate on the additional estimates appropriation bills 2023-24. Sometimes lost in the fog of the parliamentary debate is the fact that these bills are actually seeking authority from the parliament for additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the remainder of 2023-24, an important purpose. Passage of the bills will ensure continuity of government programs, which I'm sure is something that all members of this place are concerned about, and provide for the commencement of new activities agreed by the government since the 2023-24 budget. I outlined those in the introductory speech on these bills in the House. They will also ensure the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the remainder of this financial year as they fall due.

In introducing the bills, the government has already highlighted some of the more significant items provided for in these bills. The total appropriation sought through the bills is approximately $11 billion. I once again genuinely thank the honourable members of the House who have contributed to the debate. With those brief concluding comments, I commend the bills to the House.

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Long and healthy lives, thriving children and strong students, housing and infrastructure, justice for all, strong families, connection to country, culture and languages: these are the areas of work that the Closing the gap report focused on in what is a new approach that's bringing targets and outcomes together in groups, reflecting the fact that individual targets in isolation do not reflect a full picture. When we look at this year's Closing the gap report, we see that only four targets are on track. This does reinforce for all of us how much work still needs to be done.

The Closing the gap report tells us that, when it comes to advancing the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we're not where we should be. We're not where many Australians would want us to be, and our government knows this. We know that, in order to see improvement, we have to work in new ways. Australians do want us to close the gap. They do want Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to lead good lives and to have the same opportunities and life expectancy that the rest of our community has. The reality is that there is much work still to do. As a government we are not daunted by it, but we do recognise that this will require focus and determination from us—and focus and determination on working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who know what's best in their communities. We have seen time and time again that the approach of governments dictating how outcomes should be achieved has not got us the results we should have. It's not always easy for governments—particularly national governments—to take the approach of allowing things to be locally led but, certainly, when it comes to how we close the gap, it's an approach that we must take.

Yesterday we marked 16 years since the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. I went along with many members to the breakfast that was held here to commemorate that anniversary. It was a privilege to be in the room with many members of the stolen generation as well as many outstanding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and members of the community—a number of leaders who have held leadership positions for so long and worked so hard for so long but also a number of younger Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are picking up the baton and working in their communities and across this country for better outcomes. I was so struck by the strength and resilience in that room. There was no despair. There were asks of government. There were people holding government to account. But there was no despair. It was so impressive to see those people, both members of the stolen generation and their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, coming together with those of us here in the parliament to both mark that occasion and talk about what comes next, to make sure we do know and understand the stories of members of the stolen generation and that we are reminded of the failures of governments over many decades and to strengthen our resolve to continue to enact change. As the Prime Minister said, the people there showed that when we have an honest reckoning of the past we give ourselves a better future.

It was also a reminder, I think, that that apology wasn't a foregone conclusion. That apology happened because good people made it happen. It was the work of decades of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people calling for that moment of healing. It was the work of a new Labor government led by Prime Minister Rudd and the then minister for Indigenous affairs, my predecessor as the member Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin. That moment changed our nation. It was a moment of healing. Marking the anniversary yesterday felt particularly important given the result of the referendum last year. As the Prime Minister said, our government absolutely accept the result of that referendum, but we know that it has been a very, very difficult result for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the country. In fact, it has been a very, very difficult result for a number of people who voted yes. I know in my community, where we did have a 'yes' vote, people felt great sorrow after that result, and they wanted to know: What comes next? What do we do next to continue that healing in the country, to continue the work that absolutely must be done?

I am pleased that yesterday the Prime Minister made two important announcements. The first of these was on the Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program. For too long the failed CDP has not delivered job opportunities for Aboriginal people, so this is a new jobs program providing people in remote communities with real jobs, proper wages and decent conditions. This includes, importantly, superannuation and leave. It has been developed by our government in partnership with First Nations people, funding 3,000 jobs over three years. This program is all about helping people in remote communities to get proper jobs, which will then help their communities grow stronger. Local and community organisations will be employing people across all regions where the Community Development Program had been in place.

This is being complemented by our government's new $185 million Community Jobs and Business Fund, helping communities pay for projects that will create jobs under this remote jobs program. So a community could receive funding, for example, to establish or grow its own community controlled horticultural enterprise and employ local people, a win-win helping to support food security, generating economic opportunities and giving people skills and on-the-job training and accreditation. You can see how this program can come together to offer so much to communities in a way that is led by them and by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Importantly, our government also announced the introduction of a new role, the National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People. This role will start later this year. Indigenous children are almost 11 times more likely to be in out-of-home care than non-Indigenous children. That is simply not acceptable. It is a tragedy. We know that once a child is on that trajectory of out-of-home care it is very hard for them to get their life back on track. So we all have a responsibility to do more about that. That's why it is important that we will have this new commissioner role that will highlight this really important issue, a problem we have right across our country, and work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians on evidence based programs and policy to advocate for and amplify the voices of First Nations children, those children in out-of-home care who haven't had that voice before, who have not been able to talk to policymakers about their experiences and what should happen next for them. This is so important if we want to see the next generation grow up and thrive, and of course we all want to see that. We do not want to see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children on a trajectory that leads to lower life expectancy, that leads to worse outcomes across their lifetimes. We can do so much better than that in this country. I think this commissioner being in place is going to be very important, helping to address the disadvantage experienced by too many Indigenous children and families.

I pay tribute to the national body, SNAICC; it spent a lot of time advocating this. I also pay tribute to the peaks, who have worked so hard on closing the gap and on working with government and community to find a new approach to closing the gap. The peaks and the Aboriginal controlled community organisations demonstrate to us that when we work in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people we get better results. We see it in our health system, where the NACCHOs, the Aboriginal community led health organisations, get the results that other mainstream services could only dream about. We see it in successful programs like the Indigenous Rangers Program—people working on country in a program that is culturally appropriate and that delivers results not just in terms of jobs but in terms of community and the environment. I have been in community and seen those rangers, and seen how respected they are for the work they do that connects them to country and provides that benefit to the community and the whole country. That's the approach we have to take across the board—that approach of working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and finding solutions that work for them, that aren't decided here in this place, that aren't rolled out by people here in this place or people in Canberra—as excellent as some of those people must be!

We need to do more; our government is really clear about that. We are focused on that. I am pleased with the work and the announcements that have come out of this year's statement, and I look forward to being part of continuing to close the gap.

I thank my very good friend the member for Riverina for allowing me to go before him, to accommodate my schedule tonight.

Speaking on closing the gap, I want to take a few moments to remember a remarkable woman, Lowitja O'Donoghue, who was a South Australian. As we mourn her passing, we remember everything she stood for. We remember the positive impact she had on Australia, on First Nations people and in fact on the world. Despite a childhood marked by separation from family, culture and even her name, she never lost her belief in her country. Lowitja understood Australia had to do better to be better united and reconciled. I hope Australia will continue to embrace the wisdom that she shared. Not everyone gets the same chances, and it's time to change that.

I recall clearly that, during Kevin Rudd's era, one of the first things he did was give the apology in this parliament. It was the moment that made us all feel proud. I felt extremely proud being in that chamber on the day, looking around in the galleries and seeing all the First Nations people in the chamber. But one particular person was Lowitja O'Donoghue, who was in the 'special guest' chair. I recall clearly that, once the apology had been given by the Prime Minister, I went up and shook her hand, and she gave me a great big hug and had tears coming from her eyes. That's what the apology meant to our First Nations people.

As I said, not everyone gets the same chances. It's time to change that, and it's time to make some positive changes. Every person, no matter where they're from, deserves a shot at success. We need real changes in education, jobs, health care—the whole package. It's not just about talk; it's about taking some action. Let's think about the national apology from former prime minister Rudd. It acknowledged the struggles of the stolen generation. Former prime minister Rudd's sincere address called for unity and a collective commitment to a more compassionate future.

Anniversaries are important, such as the Closing the gap report that we debate in this place every year. They are important. But what really counts is what we do now and into the future—the action that we take that will determine the future. We want our First Nations Indigenous brothers and sisters not only to be part of the conversation but to actually lead it, to be inspired and to have opportunities. As a grandfather I'm happy my grandchildren will have good chances, but everyone should have equal opportunities, without unfair treatment. That's why the Prime Minister handed down the Closing the gap annual report, as we see every year—as we saw the previous Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, do, and Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott before him.

The 2024 implementation plan is important. It's not just paperwork; it's a road map into the future and a road map for real change, aimed at making life better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. This government is investing $30.2 million in remote training hubs in seven locations in Central Australia. We're creating opportunities where they're needed the most. We're delivering an additional $10.7 million to continue the Justice Policy Partnership. And, of course, we're working extremely hard, as all governments, politicians, state parliaments et cetera should be working, to reduce the incarceration rates and create a fairer system. There are programs for community wi-fi for about 20 remote communities. We're also putting $24 million into expanding the junior rangers program to 50 sites, giving more First Nations students the chance to get involved.

This is a call for action. There has already been significant progress under the 2023 closing the gap implementation plan. There are 183 people who have joined the health worker traineeship program. Part of the commitment is funding for 500 First Nations health workers. So the improvement is continuing.

We're improving access to clean water, for example, in remote Northern Territory communities. Can you believe that, in a First World country such as Australia, we're dealing with some of our communities not having clean water? It is something that just baffles me when you think of the wealth of our nation. Yet we have a small segment that does not have the same opportunities we do in every sector, from health right through to education and jobs. There's the $100 million investment in fixing homes and infrastructure on Northern Territory homelands, with 157 houses currently on track to be delivered earlier, easing overcrowding in remote communities.

The justice reinvestment package is helping communities find local solutions, local answers, for safety and for reducing those incarceration rates that I spoke about. Very importantly, over 14,000 First Nations students are taking fee-free TAFE courses for better education. We all know education is the key: education, training and skills. If you give those people—or anyone, as a matter of fact—that solid foundation through education, it improves lives. Not only will it improve lives; it will improve their communities as well. We're supporting the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation hiring 260 new workers for cancer treatments and other vital support.

I'm proud of what this government is achieving. We still have a very long way to go, obviously. Small steps are being made, but these steps represent real change, and together we're working towards a more equal and brighter future for all Australians. Here's to a future where our Indigenous communities are not just equal but empowered. Together we can make it happen. By listening to the locals and working with communities, we can make progress on closing the gap.

Eight million dollars—it's not a lot of money, particularly when you consider the amount of money spent on last year's referendum, which was about $450 million. Eight million dollars is not a lot of money when you consider the amount of money that Treasury handles every year to run this nation. Compared to the sort of money that goes through the infrastructure investment pipeline, $8 million is but loose change. But $8 million is what Mornington Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria needs for a swimming pool—an aquatic centre.

I visited that island as Acting Prime Minister, just before I lost the role as Deputy Prime Minister—it was the last official duty that I did. I gave those people a commitment to get them a swimming pool. As long as I have breath in me, and as long as they don't have a swimming pool, I will fight for them. It's a long way from Riverina, the landlocked electorate in the south-west of New South Wales that I represent. But you have to have purpose if you come to this place. You have to have vision and drive. And you have to do what's right. Whilst all politics is local, this is a cause celebre for me because the mayor there, Kyle Yanner, is a beaut bloke. I've met a lot of mayors in my time; he's one of the best. He has a young family, and they've just added a newborn baby boy. Congratulations to his family. He leads that community, which just doesn't have what we have on the mainland.

When you look at some of the statistics, they are really alarming. Mornington Island is home to around 1,200 people, 86 per cent of whom identify as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. They have up to 25 per cent unemployment. It's a very young community. There is high youth unemployment. The unemployment rate for Queensland is around 7½ per cent, which is all too high, but, when you consider that 40 per cent of families with children under the age of 15 are jobless, and you compare that to the state rate—it's in the seat of Kennedy—it is just alarming.

The total median family yearly income is less than half the Queensland average. Their disadvantage is so prevalent that 100 per cent of residents are in the most disadvantaged category under the statistician's office Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage: 100 per cent—every one of them.

The death rate for Mornington Shire was some 40 per cent higher than for Queensland in 2019. The state's Chief Health Officer's report of 2018 stated there was a 21-year difference in the median age of death between Indigenous Queensland and non-Indigenous Queensland—59 years compared to 80 years in the three-year period 2013 to 2015. This was similar for males and females.

Mornington Island doesn't ask for much. Kyle Yanner doesn't expect much. I have been to see the infrastructure minister, the member for Ballarat, on a number of occasions. I know she's a person of goodwill; I will say that. I think she was a bit surprised when I came to see her for the very first meeting. Being a former infrastructure minister—for three-and-a-third years—and here I was, cap-in-hand, for the very first meeting; she probably thought I was coming in to talk about my local area. My local area needs things too—I get that—but these people need it more. These people need it—an aquatic centre—more than anywhere else in Australia. It is very hot in any month, let alone the hottest months, on Mornington Island. I implore, I beg, I ask the government: please look beyond some of the big things that you consider are important or a priority, and fund this aquatic centre. I can't state enough how important it is—not just because I promised them that I would deliver it, but because they have gone without for so long. In July 2021, the month after I visited—when I asked for a report it was June; it was in June that I lost the job as Deputy Prime Minister and infrastructure minister—a report said that the cost of the swimming pool would be $6½ million. Obviously, with contingencies and increased construction costs, especially in remote communities, they estimate that now it's $7.9 million or a little bit over. It's not a lot of money in the scheme of things; it truly isn't. And that community absolutely deserves it.

It's the 16th anniversary for the stolen generations report, the sorry day and the national apology that Prime Minister Rudd gave back in 2008. There are some stark things within that.

We haven't done well enough as a nation. We didn't do well enough as a coalition government. Labor is falling short now. And we do need to do better; that is the case.

I do believe, earnestly and honestly, that we did some very good things in the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years. We made a difference, and that's to be commended.

The Albanese government obviously spent a lot of time and effort last year with the referendum. The results in Riverina were very emphatic: 75.08 per cent said no, 24.92 per cent said yes. A hundred out of a hundred booths voted no. The people spoke. That is democracy.

But we have to tackle disadvantage together. I know, and I was very proud, that we did some good work with the Wiradjuri Dreaming Centre, and through employment opportunities with Inland Rail, particularly in the first couple of stages that I oversaw. I know that, on Snowy Hydro 2.0, there were a number of Aboriginal people for whom it was their first ever job, and they had a function at the Wagga Wagga beach, where they expressed their delight at being given the training and the opportunity to work on that exciting project. But, now that the referendum has been done and dusted—and I appreciate that, as the member for Jagajaga said, there are people who are hurting; I understand that—it's time to tackle disadvantage together, and to say: 'Yes, we had the national vote. The nation spoke. But what should we, what can we and what must we do now, going forward, to help those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who need it most, through jobs?'

As the member for Adelaide said—and he shook his head as he said it—he couldn't believe that there are communities where there's not fresh drinking water. I agree with him. I've seen in Africa how people have eye disease because they don't have fresh, clean water to just wash their faces with. We can't have that in Australia. We're better than that. We must provide those remote communities with the services that they need, they want, they expect and they deserve. They are Australians. They are the First Australians.

Across the Riverina, whilst we have done much, I commend the work done by Hewitt Whyman, Stan Grant Sr and so many others to break the cycle of disadvantage. I acknowledge that I do come from Wiradjuri country. I acknowledge that we're meeting here on Ngunnawal and Ngambri territory. It is time to tackle the disadvantage together. The speeches given by Prime Minister Albanese and opposition leader Dutton the other day were very good. But we need more than words. We need action. We need particular action in those remote communities. The cashless welfare debit card needs to be reinstated, and very soon, to end the cycle of domestic violence and alcohol and other abuses that Aboriginal communities face all too much.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30