I present the 28th report of the Petitions Committee for the 47th Parliament.

The report read as follows—

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PETITIONS COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 28

Petitions and Ministerial Responses

1 July 2024

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP

Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP

Mr Sam Birrell MP

Ms Alison Byrnes MP

Ms Lisa Chesters MP

Mr Garth Hamilton MP

Ms Tracey Roberts MP

Ms Meryl Swanson MP

This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives

Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented.

The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 29 May and 26 June 2024.

1. The committee resolved to present the following 34 petitions in accordance with standing order 207:

Petitions certified on 29 May 2024

From 1697 petitioners—requesting the reconsideration of recent changes to age limits for Temporary Graduate visas (subclass 485) (EN6181)

From 5 petitioners—requesting reduction of the residency requirements for Australian citizenship (EN6213)

From 125 petitioners—requesting that new age limits for Temporary Graduate visas (subclass 485) apply to students arriving after 1 July 2024 (EN6215)

From 5 petitioners—requesting the establishment of regulations to limit noise emissions (EN6216)

From 26 petitioners—requesting an investigation into COVID-19 vaccines (EN6217)

From 104 petitioners—requesting that a provider be deregistered from the National Disability Insurance Scheme (EN6218)

From 1620 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza (EN6220)

From 25 petitioners—regarding the sale and serving of alcohol in Parliament House, and drug and alcohol testing (EN6221)

From 16 petitioners—regarding law enforcement tactics (EN6222)

From 2 petitioners—requesting a pathway to permanent residency for people who lived and worked in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic (EN6223)

From 274 petitioners—requesting greater flexibility within the Support at Home program (EN6225)

From 109 petitioners—requesting an increase to the Age Pension Work Bonus threshold (EN6227)

From 28 petitioners—regarding concerns related to immigration numbers (EN6228)

From 69 petitioners—requesting legislation to strengthen whistleblower protections (EN6230)

From 73 petitioners—requesting the release of an individual whistleblower (EN6231)

From 14 petitioners—regarding concerns related to the removal of regional rail corridors (EN6233)

From 24 petitioners—requesting a smartphone application for e-petitions to the House of Representatives (EN6234)

From 9 petitioners—requesting the removal of English language assessments for Australian citizens applying to undertake tertiary education (EN6236)

From 8 petitioners—regarding the Australian Government's energy bill rebate scheme (EN6237)

From 8 petitioners—requesting additional funding for the Great Barrier Reef Aquarium Reef HQ in Townsville, Queensland (EN6238)

From 28 petitioners—regarding concerns relating to the Digital ID Bill 2024 (EN6240)

From 1557 petitioners—requesting that the live animal export industry be maintained (EN6241)

From 284 petitioners—requesting that Support at Home participants be given the ability to self-manage their age care services (EN6242)

From 13 petitioners—requesting the cancellation of a proposed 5G infrastructure project (EN6243)

From 24 petitioners—regarding concerns relating to a social media dance challenge (EN6244)

From 343 petitioners—requesting that a pardon be granted to Mr David McBride (EN6246)

From 13 petitioners—requesting that the House protect and promote secular democracy as a system of government (EN6247)

From 177 petitioners—requesting that eligibility for the Commonwealth Prac Payment scheme be widened to include medical students (EN6249)

From 99 petitioners—requesting the removal of the Capstone exam for prospective Registered Migration Agents (EN6250)

From 1922 petitioners—requesting that endometriosis be recognised as a condition resulting in permanent impairment by the National Disability Insurance Scheme (EN6251)

From 18 petitioners—requesting the option of advance payments for Centrelink support recipients (EN6253)

From 1342 petitioners—requesting the reintroduction of validation documents for authorised amateur radio operators (EN6254)

From 119 petitioners—requesting that temporary work visas be made available to international students who will be completing their studies in July 2024 (EN6255)

From 15 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government provide incentives to the building industry (EN6256)

2. The following 19 ministerial responses to petitions were received.

Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 26 June 2024

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting that foreign citizens be prohibited from owning any land or property in Australia (EN4359)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting that the cost of diesel fuel be lowered (EN4807)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting that changes be made to the superannuation guarantee rate to influence inflation (EN4822)

From the Treasurer to a petition regarding foreign ownership of Australian residential and agricultural land (EN5024)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting that the Reserve Bank of Australia hold 2 percent of foreign currency reserves in Bitcoin (EN5167)

From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a petition requesting the establishment of a National War Widows Day (EN5634)

From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition requesting upgrades to the rail network (EN5648)

From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a petition requesting the development of a code of conduct for veterans' advocates (EN5773)

From the Minister for Education to a petition regarding Higher Education Contribution Scheme repayments (EN5829)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding restrictions on vaping products and e-cigarettes (EN5894)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting the repeal of legislative changes affecting the regulation of e-cigarettes (EN5905)

From the Minister for Home Affairs to a petition regarding the Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment scheme (EN5922)

From the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a petition regarding the role of plan managers within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (EN5993)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting that the drug belzutifan be included in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (EN6026)

From the Minister for Social Services to a petition regarding the Seniors Connected Village Hub program (EN6046)

From the Minister for Social Services to a petition requesting that the age of independence for Youth Allowance eligibility be lowered (EN6048)

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the Russian presidential election in March 2024 (EN6065)

From the Treasurer to a petition requesting a public inquiry into the findings of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (PN0543)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding community pharmacies (PN0573)

Ms Susan Templeman MP

Chair—Petitions Committee

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I present the following 34 petitions:

I present 19 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.

Some topics covered in today's petitions include a request for endometriosis to be recognised by the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a request to maintain the live animal export industry and a request relating to documentation for amateur radio operators.

With the upcoming break in parliamentary sittings, it will be several weeks before another report of the Petitions Committee will be presented. With that in mind, I'd like to use this opportunity to explain the key stages of the petitions process. All the petitions presented today are electronic petitions that were first seen by the committee at our meeting on 29 May. After the committee certified the e-petitions as being in order, they were loaded onto the petitions page on the parliament's website, where they were open for signatures for four weeks. Now that those weeks have passed, the petitions are being presented to the House. Paper petitions are treated a bit differently because they have already been signed before they come to the committee. Once the committee certifies a paper petition as being in order, it can be presented to the House at the next opportunity.

After petitions are presented to the House, those petitions that have received 50 or more signatures may be referred to the relevant minister for a response. Ministers are expected to respond to a referred petition within 90 days of presentation. Petitioners are reminded that a response from the minister is addressed back to the Petitions Committee. After the committee has noted the response, it is included in the committee's next report to the House. The ministerial responses included in today's presentation are those that the committee received at our meeting last week. In turn, responses that we receive at our committee meeting this week will be presented to the House at the next opportunity, which is scheduled for Monday 12 August. After a ministerial response has been presented, it is uploaded to the parliament's website alongside the relevant petition. The House Hansard also records petitions and responses presented to the House. Finally, I also note that the principal petitioner is notified as their petition progresses through each of the key steps in the petitioning process.

I trust this information assists those engaging with the House petitioning system, and I look forward to presenting more petitions and ministerial responses during the next sitting period.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

A bit of fun with mates, fleeting enjoyment, inducements, 'free bets', hidden addiction, guilt and shame, financial distress, poor mental and physical health, drug and alcohol abuse, relationship breakdown, mortgage default, homelessness, childhood poverty, family violence, elder abuse, criminal activity, suicide: these are the products of the gambling industry.

This is what they are selling. And many Australians are buying.

The big sporting codes are complicit and dependant on the cut they get from every bet laid, their sponsorships from gambling companies and additional payments linked to the amounts gambled.

The broadcasting and advertising companies are bringing in the cash.

The government accepts political donations, as does the opposition.

And the regulation is patently inadequate to manage the risks.

It's been a year since, on 28 June 2023, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs handed down its You win some, you lose more report into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.

The committee, chaired by the courageous MP the late Peta Murphy, recognised the harm being done by online gambling and gambling advertising to our children, to our young people and to those experiencing gambling addiction.

In that report, they said, 'Australians demand an end to saturation advertising of gambling products', and that is absolutely true.

The committee recommended the phasing out of gambling advertisement over three years with a comprehensive ban that 'leaves no room for circumvention' to halt what they call the 'inescapable torrent' of gambling advertising on all media.

I had hoped against hope for a strong and decisive government that would take this report and action the recommendations, so presumably did the seven in 10 Australians who want to see better regulation and support and a ban on gambling advertising. They are rightly concerned the industry is grooming children and young people through partnerships with sport, in particular.

But, in the intervening 12 months, there has been very little conversation and very, very little action.

Consulting the vested interests is like consulting the fox regarding its access to the henhouse.

And we cannot pretend they are at arm's length. Gambling companies have funnelled hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in donations to the major parties at the federal level over the past decades or so of regulatory neglect.

The situation is only growing worse, and that is what deeply concerns me.

Roy Morgan research conducted in the 12 months to March this year, reported by the Alliance for Gambling Reform, shows the number of people betting on sports has more than doubled in the last five years.

Worryingly, almost a million Australians—to be accurate, 881,000—who sports bet are now considered 'problem' or moderate-risk gamblers, and that's according to the Problem Gambling Severity Index.

I do have a problem with the terms 'problem gamblers' and 'problem gambling'. The problem here is the harmful product, not the person, and this is a public health issue.

More than one-third of all spending on sports betting is coming from people experiencing gambling harm, even though so-called 'problem gamblers' represent only 10 per cent of the player base.

For some sports betting companies, people experiencing gambling harm make up almost 20 per cent of their entire customer base.

These companies are literally playing them to extinction.

This is why I am reintroducing my private members bill to ban all advertising of online gambling.

This has gone too far. The situation is dire. Regulations are lax, yet the government are doing very little to police this industry. The government have allowed, during their time in government, this industry to continue to flourish.

The minister's lack of action, I think, is embarrassing.

Work on BetStop commenced under the former government. The ban on the use of credit cards for online wagering was a proposal I first brought into this House as a private member's bill. And we have seen one insipid set of messaging replaced with another.

We are harming our young people by our lack of action in this place.

This is the tobacco advertising equivalent of our generation. Now, a previous generation of members of parliament had the courage and foresight to ban cigarette advertising, and we must and should do the same with gambling advertising. We just need a spine and we need to stand up to the big money.

The time for action on gambling advertising is now. It is today. And I urge members in this House to bring this to a debate. Let us take the moral high ground for once in this place.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion. Australians spend more than anyone else in the world on legal forms of gambling. Almost half of Australian adults who do gamble are at risk of or are already experiencing gambling harm, according to research conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—in other words, financial hardship and psychological distress, relationship breakdown and sometimes resorting to crime and even suicide. That we allow gambling companies to actively encourage gambling addiction is, quite simply, unconscionable.

The link between gambling advertising and risky gambling behaviour is no secret. These advertisements seek to normalise gambling and to foster a culture among Australians, particularly younger Australians, of continuous betting. The Australian Institute of Family Studies found the link between gambling advertising is not only strong but strongest amongst our young people. Moreover, one in five young women and one in seven young men began gambling because of an advertisement. Worse still, 40 per cent of those already at risk of gambling related harm gamble impulsively after seeing or hearing promotional material. No wonder recent research shows that gambling addicts make up 20 per cent of some sports betting companies' entire company base. Surely this is unacceptable. Surely it must end. I'm constantly told by constituents that they are sick to death of the incessant gambling advertising campaigns, especially in recent years, when there has been a surge of exposure to gambling marketing, advertising and sponsorships. Indeed, the Australian Communications and Media Authority reports that more than a million ads bombarded Australians between 2022 and 2023 alone, which genuinely is an onslaught of harmful messaging that can no longer be ignored.

Behind these statistics are real people, like Mark Kempster, a constituent and recovering gambling addict who has lost around $100,000. Despite repeatedly pleading with gambling companies not to contact him and being on an exclusion list, Mark still found himself receiving emails offering him bonuses to open new accounts. In the words of Mark himself, 'These types of unsolicited advances can ruin people's lives,' and he's right. They did their best to try and ruin his. And then there's Gavin Fineff, the formal financial adviser who gambled and lost more than $8 million of his clients' money with the willing assistance of Tabcorp, Ladbrokes and BetEasy. Yes, Gavin understands he did the wrong thing and is now in jail. But he's not the only one to blame, because the predatory practices of the gambling companies clearly facilitated and encouraged Gavin's gambling addiction, offering him VIP status, bonus bets and even tickets to big sporting events.

The government cannot allow this madness to continue. When the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, chaired by the late Peta Murphy, published their report on online gambling harm last year, they made 31 recommendations, including banning gambling advertising. So it's entirely unacceptable that an entire year has passed, almost to the day, and the government still hasn't responded to the report or enacted any meaningful reforms to combat gambling advertising. But I suppose that's not inconsistent with the report released by the Centre for Public Integrity last year, which showed that $24 million in donations have flowed to Labor and the coalition from the gambling industry over the past two decades. And let's not forget the $19,000 or so that Sportsbet donated to the then shadow communications minister, now the communications minister, in the lead-up to the 2022 election.

It's way beyond time the government stopped kowtowing to the gambling industry, as well as the big media companies and sporting codes, and instead focused on protecting Australians from such predatory industries. The voice of the community is loud and clear on this issue, and the government needs to start listening. There is simply no place for gambling advertising in the Australian media, and it's way beyond time it was banned. The member for Mayo's bill would do just that, and I'm delighted to support and second it for the second time due to continuing inaction of governments.

on indulgence—I'd like to thank the member for Mayo for bringing this motion forward. I was the deputy chair on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs with the former member for Dunkley. It was a bipartisan committee. We all came to the same conclusion that gambling advertising should be banned on live TV and on social media. I urge the government to respond to our recommendations. It has been a year. It's time to do something about it. Thank you again to the member for Mayo.

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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that on Monday, 1 July 2024, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut; and

(2) acknowledges the Government's number one priority is to tackle the cost of living pressures facing Australians by ensuring they earn more and keep more of what they earn.

Today is the day—1 July 2024. Today, the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living tax cuts come into effect, providing tangible cost-of-living relief to every single Australian taxpayer. Let's look at the facts. All 13.6 million taxpayers will receive a tax cut, and 2.9 million more taxpayers will receive a tax cut than would have under the coalition's failed plan. Eighty-four per cent of taxpayers—11.5 million people—will now receive a bigger tax cut under this government than they would have received previously. Five-point-eight million women—90 per cent of women taxpayers—will now receive a bigger tax cut compared to what they would have under the plan proposed by the coalition.

Labor's tax cuts deliver essential cost-of-living relief for Middle Australia, alleviating some of the pressures that currently impact household budgets. Importantly, Treasury has advised that these tax cuts will not add inflationary pressure. In our community of McEwen, these tax cuts will have a huge impact. Every single one of the 76,000 taxpayers in McEwen will receive a tax cut. On average throughout our communities, each person will get $1,583 back in their pockets. That is in addition to the $300 energy rebate that every single household will receive. That's another $300 back into the family budget.

It adds to the work of taking off more pressure in the cost-of-living crisis and supporting all Australians. Additionally, the Albanese Labor government is working tirelessly to tackle the cost of living and groceries. We are strengthening the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct and accepting all the recommendations from the recent independent review. This is part of our wide-ranging cost-of-living crackdown on anticompetitive behaviour in the grocery sector, and it is firmly aimed at getting a fair go for Australians and a fair go for farmers. It's all part of the plan to have Australians keep more of their hard-earned money and not to splash cash, which would lead to higher inflation. This is not the cash-splash that we've seen under previous governments.

Those opposite wouldn't know what effective cost-of-living relief or competent economic management were if they hit them in the face. Apart from a harebrained scheme to produce the most expensive form of energy in the world, what has the opposition offered up in response to the cost of living? The word is 'nothing'; they say, 'No.' Do they want cheaper energy bills? 'No.' Do they want cheaper medicines? 'No.' Do they want affordable housing? 'No.' Do they want wage increases? 'No.' Do they want tax cuts for all hardworking Australians? 'No.' We all recall the Deputy Leader of the Opposition grandstanding, saying that they will roll back these tax cuts.

Make no mistake: the coalition want to put your taxes up unless you're in the highest income bracket, and that is unfair on all Australian workers. They want to take the money that Labor has put back into the pockets of hardworking Australians for no reasons other than illogical ones. When it comes to the cost of living, the Liberals always say, 'No.' Their nasty negativity is no substitute for good economic policy credibility. Remember: the failed Liberals and Nationals left a legacy of economic mismanagement. The prolific spending, debt and deficit left this country on its knees.

This Labor government has been laying the foundations for a successful economy while dealing with the current cost-of-living crisis. The cornerstone of our cost-of-living relief package comes into effect today. If you're a nurse, the government has given you a tax cut. If you're a teacher, the government has given you a tax cut. If you're a truckie, this government has given you a tax cut. More than 95 per cent of the hardworking Australians in those industries will be getting a bigger and better tax cut than they would have received under the coalition. Under our plan, Labor's plan, more Australians will get a tax cut—and a bigger tax cut.

These tax cuts which come into effect today partner with our election promises of cheaper medicine, cheaper child care and affordable housing, and all are aimed at the cost of living. We said that we would get wages moving again in responsible ways, and we are. We supported this decision particularly because we know that our lowest paid workers are exposed to the impacts of high inflation. Given that real wages were going backwards, deliberately, under a decade of the coalition, and with all the pressures low-paid workers are under at the moment, we think it's entirely appropriate that they get the support they need. And we have seen around 800,000 jobs created since we came to government, a record for any government's first term. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government; we actually stand up for working families and provide the practical support and opportunities which the coalition failed to during its 10 years in government.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Labor have given a tax cut to help with the cost-of-living crisis that they have created with a reckless approach to spending that has fuelled inflation. Across the last three budgets, Labor has committed an additional $315 billion in inflationary spending—an extra $315 billion. This accounts for almost $30,000 per household, and I would ask the average Australian household out there: do you feel $30,000 better off thanks to Labor's spending? Last week's figures showed core inflation has risen to 4.4 per cent, and it has increased for four months in a row. When inflation is rising, one can be sure that interest rates aren't going down and that Australian households are getting heaped and heaped with more weight until they're almost about to collapse.

Since the election, real disposable income is down 7.8 per cent; we have locked in bad workplace laws which are driving up the cost of doing business, and this is being passed on to the consumer as the cost of living increases; and families are now being slugged with higher tax. Labor is banking $60 million in bracket creep and has increased personal income tax by 20 per cent since the election. Betashares' chief economist described the latest consumer price report as a 'shocker', saying that it places huge pressure on the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates in August. What we have here is a reckless Labor government, with their budget increasing the probability that Australian households and families will be slugged with higher interest rates and more pain.

Families are hurting, because the prices of basic necessities are going up. Food is up 11.4 per cent, housing is up 14 per cent, rents are up 14 per cent, electricity is up 21 per cent and gas is up 22 per cent. But what do these numbers mean? They mean that every time you pay a gas bill, it will double every three years. That's what 22 per cent per annum means: every three years your gas bill is doubling and every three years your electricity bill is doubling. Australian families have had enough, and they can't take it anymore.

It isn't just a global phenomenon. Core inflation in Australia is high and rising; it's higher than in Sweden, it's higher than in the UK, it's higher than in Norway, it's higher than in Canada, it's higher than for our neighbours in New Zealand, it's higher than in the rest of the euro area, it's higher than in the US and it's higher than in Switzerland. In stark contrast with Australia, inflation is now falling in all those countries I just mentioned. So this Labor government has put the Reserve Bank between a rock and a hard place. Australian families are breaking and under pressure. Inflation is falling everywhere else in the world. Yet they're left with the impossible task of trying to get this narrow landing without crashing the economy because of this irresponsible Labor government and its spending.

Now, this government for the last two years have been completely distracted with the wrong priorities. They could have started from day one with a focus on cost of living; instead, they were focused on divisive social policies. No matter how much money the government try to spin this, from the data this is a homegrown inflation crisis. Now is the time for the government to rein in their irresponsible spending, to adjust their budget and deal with the problems so Australians aren't burdened further by their mismanagement of the economy and the country. Tight monetary policy is being undermined by Labor's loose fiscal policy. If interest rates rise between now and the end of this year, it will be on the government's head. Dr Chalmers needs to stand before the Australian public and admit this Labor government is the reason inflation is out of control.

In stark contrast to this irresponsible Labor government approach, the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition have stated how they will reign in inflationary spending and take pressure off Australians, take pressure off Australian households and take pressure off interest rates and mortgages.

Today is a very special day; it is the start of a new financial year. Do you know what that means? Every Australian taxpayer will be getting a tax cut. It is Christmas in July for every taxpayer in Australia, and the Prime Minister and Treasurer have been working hard at delivering for everyone who pays tax. While they may not have a sled and I might be too tall to be called an elf, what they do have is a hardworking team of Labor MPs behind them and a commitment to delivering for the hardworking people in this country. There is a lot to be excited about with all of these tax cuts, so let me just crunch a few figures. 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. Eighty-four per cent of taxpayers—that is, 11.5 million people—will now receive a bigger tax cut compared to the previous plan. Ninety per cent of women taxpayers, which is 5.8 million women, will now receive a bigger tax cut compared to what was previously proposed.

Time and time again we hear at election time that Labor is the party of higher taxes. It was never true, but now those opposite can't possibly use that line without making their lie crystal clear. In fact, we've heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say that they absolutely will roll back our tax cuts. It looks like taxes will be higher under a coalition government. Our outlook is clear and simple: we want more Australians to keep more of what they earn. I grew up in a hardworking family, and I've worked hard to provide for my own family as well. I know that every cent saved helps. I know that when the cost of living makes family budgets tight, times can be hard. I also know that any relief is welcome relief and that is why these tax cuts are going to have such a big impact for so many people in the Hunter electorate and right across Australia.

But it is not just tax cuts that help. Our whole budget had a big focus on cost-of-living relief across the board. We've announced new energy bill relief for every household and for one million small businesses. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by a further 15 per cent, taking the total increase to 25 per cent, making it the first back-to-back increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in three decades. We've wiped almost $3 billion in student debt, helping more than three million young Australians, with the average worker saving around $1,200. We've provided up to $3 billion to make medicines cheaper, freezing the maximum cost of the PBS prescriptions for everyone. We've also put the poor economic managers line that those opposite used to use to bed. We've provided all of this at the same time as we're expecting to deliver a back-to-back surplus for the first time in almost two decades, we're seeing wages grow at the fastest rate in 15 years and we're getting real wage growth sooner than expected.

We are a government that is setting records. Around 800,000 jobs have been created since we came to government, and that is more than any other first-term government. It could not be clearer: we are getting on with rolling out billions of dollars of cost-of-living relief that is carefully designed to take some of the edge off some of the pressures that people are under right now.

You hear those opposite bang on about cost of living, saying over and over that something needs to be done, but if you pay close attention, you'll see they've voted against every single one of these measures, which will make a real difference to the lives of the people of Australia. Those opposite are all talk, no action. If they really cared, they would support this relief, but they won't. The cost of living is hitting many of us very hard. We understand this and we are acting to do something about it, which is more than the 'no-alition' can say. We gave every Australian taxpayer a tax cut, which is more than the 'no-alition' can say. And we did it because we really care about every single Australian, which is more than the coalition can say. Under Labor, wages are growing, jobs are being created, Aussies are being supported and today everyone will be rewarded with a tax cut.

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

I declare that Federation Chamber orders of the day No. 3, government business, Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 and No. 2, government business, Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 are returned to the House for further consideration.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I'm delighted to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024, which will transform for the better the relationship between the parliament and Australia's defence establishment, and I mean that very seriously and very genuinely. It will see the establishment of a standalone joint statutory committee on defence with real responsibilities and powers. As chair of the defence subcommittee, I crafted the report on armed conflict that recommended the establishment of the committee in this new form. It's been a long time coming. Various similar proposals were recommended under the former government. Ironically, one of those inquiries was led by Senator Reynolds when she was chair of the subcommittee, recommending a similar thing. Then, when she became Minister for Defence, she was not allowed to implement her own recommendations.

I want to touch on the need for the bill. Context is the starting point. As I said, this bill flows from an inquiry into how Australia decides to enter armed conflict situations. This included consideration of what role the parliament has in such decisions and, importantly, in oversighting conflicts and executive government once a decision is made. Our inquiry concluded that decisions regarding armed conflict or the gravest decision of going to war are and must remain the prerogative of executive government, and there is no greater responsibility that any government bears. But alongside that reality there is a clear and urgent need to significantly improve the transparency and accountability of governments for these decisions and the conduct of military operations, and to improve the role and the ability of the parliament to hold governments to account. This necessitates formal arrangements which should be put in place now, including via an appropriately empowered and resourced joint committee with the ability to handle classified national security material appropriately.

In making that recommendation, we also identified the need for broad responsibilities and a revamp of the entire relationship between parliament and the defence enterprise. I mean that in the broader sense: the Department of Defence, the Australian Defence Force, portfolios agencies and entities, defence industry, the Inspector-General of the ADF and so on.

This need flows particularly from the very challenging and complex strategic circumstances that Australia finds itself in. We've been saying around this parliament, under the former government and under this government, the vast majority of members of both houses, that our country faces the worst strategic circumstances we've faced since the Second World War. They're not words that can just roll off the tongue lightly. One of the things that we need to do in response to that—that the parliament urgently needs to do—is to devote more time, resources and firepower to scrutinising and working with Defence.

And it's not all about secret stuff, either. A more coherent and coordinated scrutiny of public issues and well-informed public discussion of defence and strategic policy matters is critical. Nothing in this bill would mean less transparency or accountability, but it would mean that the parliament can get into areas that we have never been able to get into before. It's also true that the vast bulk of critical topics and questions that must be explored and understood by parliament are currently off limits due to a lack of power or classification issues. This is unacceptable, and it's also harmful for defence and the ADF in this environment.

I've been a member of the Defence Subcommittee for five years and I've served as chair for the last two years. It is, frankly, ridiculous that elected members of parliament with a serious interest in strategic issues have little to no ability to engage meaningfully with the most fundamental issues that go to the security of our country and our responsibilities, like these: What's really behind white papers and defence strategies? What contingencies are we actually planning for as a country and are we prepared for them? What are our major gaps that require extra attention? They may require policy or legislative action, or new investments. What about long-term multidecade investments that outlast successive multiple changes of government?

We need to understand in a classified forum, a detailed forum, the rationale, the progress and the expenditure on key capabilities as well as sustainment activities. One-third of the Defence portfolio budget is largely off limits to scrutiny from the parliament because it involves sustainment. The minute you do that in public, you may trigger vulnerabilities to potential adversaries, highlighting where stuff's not fit for service. It's ridiculous. This stuff consumes hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds.

What is our planning for industry mobilisation in the event of contingencies? What about specific issues such as fuel security; the operations, resources and performance of the Inspector-General of the ADF; or matters relating to defence personnel and veterans? And I see the minister here at the table.

I spent two hours here last Friday afternoon in the subcommittee with senior ADF officers—three stars—and two deputy secretaries, reviewing matters relating to the Defence Strategic Review and the National Defence Strategy. It was a serious and thought-provoking discussion but also frustrating and at times farcical. Throughout the discussion, we constantly and repeatedly hit brick walls, where senior officials said with equal frustration, 'We wish we could brief you on that and explain what we're doing. We wish we could explain to you our thinking on the importance of that capability,' or this thing. 'We wish we could talk with you about that question because we're grappling with it also, and it's difficult.' There are things that are at the intersection of the professional military, senior public servants and the parliament, but we can't talk about them.

The current situation is patently ridiculous and it needs to change, and urgently so. Frankly, this bill should pass both houses this week so we can get on with work. It's not just about the parliament, to be clear; the new committee would be beneficial to defence and also the Australian public. Parliamentary scrutiny is important in ensuring the best decision-making and the most efficient and prudent use of taxpayer funds, along with a more informed parliament and by extension, therefore, the Australian public.

With respect to this committee and the Defence proposal, I draw a parallel with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's a committee that I sit on, the shadow minister sits on and, Deputy Speaker, that you sat on and where we bonded. In the 1980s, the second Hope royal commission into Australia's intelligence agencies explicitly recommended against establishing a parliamentary committee on ASIO. Prime Minister Bob Hawke, in the 1980s, considered that recommendation and very wisely rejected it. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO went on over the coming decades to become today's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It was a wise decision by Prime Minister Hawke, just as this is a wise decision by Prime Minister Albanese.

This committee will be good for scrutiny and oversight, just as the PJCIS was. It was good for fostering greater bipartisanship on national security matters and good for our entire system of government. The senior shadow ministers, like the shadow minister for defence there, are then already engaged and briefed when there is a change of government. They come into the portfolio knowing where they're at. It's good for intelligence agencies themselves. It's built greater knowledge, literacy and awareness amongst MPs of the work our security agencies do that can't be talked about in public. It has enabled them to be held to account for failings in an appropriate way, drawing on insights from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and we do that. I believe it has improved their social licence with the Australian people, who know that the agencies are subject to proper democratic oversight, even if it can't all be done in public.

This stuff is really difficult in a Liberal democracy. It's the inherent tension between the collective security of the Australian people and an individual's liberty. It's absolutely right that democratically elected parliamentarians are the arbiters of that tension. I am a member of the PJCIS this term. The committee is hardworking, diligent, robust when needed and operates in a collaborative spirit. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence—if we can ever get this bill passed—will have the same benefits for democracy and defence as the PJCIS has had for the national intelligence community.

To support the establishment of the committee, the government has provided $17.5 million over the decade, in this budget. It's 1 July; the appropriation is there and ready to go. All we need to do is actually pass the bill. As I said, it's a long time coming. The inquiry I led was to deliver a commitment in the Labor Party's national platform when we came to government. Previous inquiries also recommended the establishment of a statutory committee on Defence, but when the former government responded in 2019 to a recommendation of their own government-controlled committee, they disagreed. They said:

There are already substantial Parliamentary oversight measures in place for the Department of Defence. Australia has enjoyed a long period of broad bipartisanship agreement on Defence policy, operations and force structure and additional measures to enhance bipartisanship are not necessary at this time.

Basically, that is complete waffle. It didn't address the issues in the report. It doesn't address the real issues in front of the parliament or the country and doesn't go to the reality of the issues that we face.

I'll make some gentle remarks about the opposition's current position. It's a little peculiar. More than that, I'd say it's bizarre, disappointing, irresponsible and, frankly, embarrassing for them. Senior members of the opposition—literally every single opposition member I've spoken to over many months and a couple of years, really—acknowledge the need for this to happen. They've been publicly calling for it. Indeed, they've written to us, asking for this bill to be accelerated. There have been wise words from the shadow minister, who's been on the record publicly calling for this since 2020. He said:

… parliamentary scrutiny of Defence is broken and needs fixing.

He went on to say, and I agree:

There is no independent Joint Defence Committee where tough questions can be asked in a classified, protected space. Parliamentary scrutiny these days is surface level … This is an area of urgent reform. If we are serious about increased accountability and transparency, then we need proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force. Without it, our parliament can't exercise proper civilian oversight of our military.

I agree. We should all agree. So it beggars belief that now the opposition say they won't support it unless we fiddle the membership rules to lock out their political enemies.

The government's position on this has been clear from the beginning. The committee's report, which everyone signed up to, recommended that it be modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Actually, if you look at the bill we're debating and the PJCIS legislation, they are the same. It's cut and paste. This was a unanimous recommendation of the committee—save for the Greens political party's dissenting report. But now it seems, despite the manifest urgency and the benefits to be gained from this for the country, for the parliament, for the Australian people and for Defence itself, we're at a crossroads. The Liberal Party is trying to blackmail the government into agreeing to an undemocratic amendment that would stop parliament ever appointing members of the crossbench to the committee. And the Greens political party say in their dissenting report that they'd support the committee only if members of the crossbench were appointed.

The government is committed to having this bill passed. In realpolitik though—let's just call it out in plain English—the impasse is bizarre. The Liberal Party is incentivising the government to do a deal with the crossbench which they claim to oppose; the crossbench are doing the reverse. Both fringes of politics are acting in self-interest not the national interest. I really encourage all of my colleagues to stop the silly game of parliamentary chicken, grow up and pass the bill as it's drafted, modelled exactly on the longstanding PJCIS legislation.

I'll just make one final point. I'm not speculating, in the months, hopefully, or years or decades to come, what this Prime Minister or future prime ministers would do with that important power to appoint members to this committee, which is exactly the same as the Prime Minister of the day's power to appoint members to the Intelligence and Security Joint Committee.

But I do make the point, as uncomfortable as it is for many of us, the reality is, right now, that about a quarter of Australians are not voting for either major party. I think that's a problem. I do not believe in the cult of the independent—this narcissistic individualism. Governments are collective endeavours. It's great to sit and howl at the moon in the Senate, as the Greens political party do, but governments are collective endeavours, and you change the country for better through government—I believe through Labor governments. Others have a different view, fair enough.

But, given disinformation, foreign interference and misinformation, just imagine the circumstance where our country was faced with a military threat and where the government of the day, whoever they were, had to exercise that grave responsibility and put our troops in harm's way. There may be a time when it would be downright sensible, if not necessary, to have one of the more sensible members of the crossbench in the tent, being briefed and able to talk to that significant proportion of the Australian population who might trust them, not them, not us or not mainstream parties. I don't agree, to be very clear, but I do think it's fundamentally undemocratic to write in legislation a provision that prevents the parliament appointing any member of parliament to a committee.

I'll conclude with the previous comments on the need for this committee, in March this year, again by the shadow minister—you can have the last word again, shadow minister. I've read your stuff, and I agree with you on this: 'I think that it would be a really important development for a lot of parliamentarians who care about our troops and want to see the best for them'—well put. Pass the bill.

I'm very pleased that I'm joined in the chamber by no less than the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—I thank him for the work that he is doing on behalf of our veterans—and also the shadow defence minister. I thank him also for the work he's doing in the defence space and I thank him for his service with the SAS, because he kept our nation safe. He, like others, were sent to conflicts to do what they were asked by the parliament and by the people, and it's a brave undertaking. The fact that he is now continuing to serve our nation and our people in this important role is tremendous, and I do wish him all the very best when he is, one day, the defence minister, because I think we'd be very well served if he were in that portfolio position in the not-too-distant future.

This Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 is an important bill. It establishes the new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence through amendments to the Defence Act, which dates back to 1903. Indeed, my hometown of Wagga Wagga is the only inland regional centre with all three arms of defence. Every Army recruit does their soldiering training in Kapooka at Blamey Barracks, home of the soldier, and they do that basic training at 1st Recruit Training Battalion. We have an Air Force base at Forest Hill, RAAF Base Wagga, 'where air power begins', as it says on the hangar. If you spend any time in the Royal Australian Air Force, you will probably end up at Forest Hill, Wagga Wagga. With those brave Air Force men and women at Forest Hill, we also have a Navy base there, where anywhere up to 80 officers serve. Who would have thought? I know the Murrumbidgee is a big river, as that's the Wiradjuri meaning of the name, and it has deep water, but we're very proud to have a Navy base such a long way from the nearest drop of sea water.

You do have a beach.

We do have a beach. Thank you to the veterans' affairs minister. It was rated the ninth-best beach in Australia not that long ago! The Navy forms a very important part of our tri-military service in Wagga Wagga, capital of the Riverina.

I say all this in the context of this bill because this new Joint Committee on Defence will often look into Defence infrastructure, funding and spending, and it's important that that is one of its key components and core roles. At the moment, for the Riverina Redevelopment Program, there is $1.40878 billion—that's a thousand million dollars—being spent at the two Wagga Wagga defence bases: Kapooka and Forest Hill. I thank the government for continuing to build on the record funding committed by the former coalition government. It's too important not to. RAAF Wagga and Kapooka go back to the Second World War. They play an integral role in the training of our men and women who wear the uniforms of this nation.

At Blamey Barracks, at Kapooka, the approved budget of $846.864 million covers works including new recruit accommodation, a new medical training facility, a new recruit physical training facility, new recruit welfare facilities, a multifunction centre, and new facilities for the Australian Army Band Kapooka, which is so important. The community think they own the band, but the band are there to play the music and the tunes on the regular Friday march-outs. That is their main role, but they become so enmeshed with the community that the community think they own them. There's also a new headquarters building, a new clothing and Q store, a new weapons range, and other upgraded new infrastructure works—electronics, water, sewerage et cetera. That's at Kapooka.

At RAAF Base Wagga, where we were joined on 13 June by the member for Moreton, in his capacity as Chair of the Public Works Committee, and the member for Hinkler, we toured and we listened to the officials and the defence authorities about the upgrades to RAAF Base Wagga. I say this again, in the context of this bill, because it is very relevant. This is the sort of work which will also be undertaken by this new parliamentary joint committee. The approved budget for the works at RAAF Wagga is $561.929 million, which includes new recruit and training accommodation. Let me tell the parliament: if this wasn't going to be funded, there would be every opportunity for a future government to look at RAAF and think, 'Why do we need to continue operating out of Wagga Wagga?' The accommodation was from the 1950s or 1960s—certainly not fit for purpose for the modern era. The funding will also cover a new combined mess; a new gymnasium and pool; a new weapons training simulations system—they're very expensive, those things, but so very necessary; new fire tanks and pump house; new education facilities; and a new retail facility. These are going to be important components to secure not only the future of those two bases but the future of training in a regional setting, and it's vital that that be the case. All training for Defence doesn't need to be in metropolitan areas; indeed, it probably ought not be in metropolitan areas. I know the work that goes on up in Capricornia and elsewhere right across the nation. If Defence does one thing well, it is spreading its training and works right across this broad nation.

This is important legislation. It is also, as the shadow minister for defence has quite correctly pointed out, deeply concerning that there could be some in the House of Representatives, and indeed the parliament, who do not share the same vision for training, for our defence commitments and for our defence spending as those of the major parties do. By that I mean the Greens; let's call it what it is. I have great concerns about the Greens' attitude towards the security of this nation. I think that is shared across the parliament and its aisles. The Greens, rest assured, are not an environmental party. They stopped being an environmental party decades ago. They are about destroying the very fabric that made this country great. They are about societal change which does not enhance this country and does not place us amongst the great nations of the world.

I've been to Camp Baird on a number of occasions, but, on my very first visit 10 or so years ago on a multiparty parliamentary visit, I can remember being told by the Americans how proud they were to serve alongside Australians. They said how proud they were of our commitment and the fact that, when things got a little bit tough in various conflicts, Australia did not cut and run. The Greens wouldn't have had us there in the first place. They wouldn't have had too many people, if any, wearing the uniform. They certainly would not have made sure that our combat equipment was modernised—the latest and greatest. They wouldn't have been party to that either.

Shame!

I hear, 'Shame.' That is so true, because it is shameful that they have this view. None of us like war. None of us like conflict. What is going on in the Middle East and in Ukraine at the moment is so desperate and so unnecessary, and so many innocent civilian lives in particular are being lost. But the price of peace is eternal vigilance. To ensure that we have a nation at the ready, we need to invest. We need to spend money. We need to make sure that, when our fellow like-minded nations, such as Ukraine, are in peril and in trouble, we are there for them. We spend a lot of time, money and effort on making sure that the peace deployments are what they need to be.

The Greens' plan, according to their own platform, states that this party will cancel defence contracts, cut defence spending and renegotiate the US alliance to secure a new relationship focused on making us a better global citizen. They will reduce military spending to 1.5 per cent of GDP and close all military bases that foreign militaries have set up in this country. So that would be goodbye to all the marines who land in the Top End at Darwin in the Northern Territory. It would be goodbye to all of that. It would be goodbye indeed to our US alliance. Rest assured, if ever there is a friend that we will need in times of crisis, it will be the United States of America. It doesn't matter whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House. We have a longstanding and close relationship with the United States of America. It's good for us and, rest assured, it's good for them, too.

But, if you get in a power-sharing arrangement with the Greens and those manic, desperate, anti-Australian politicians have any say in government policy, in defence spending or in defence full stop, we will be in trouble as a nation. Say goodbye to AUKUS. Say goodbye to Pine Gap. Indeed, say goodbye to all of that. Those will be the first things cut. I do hope that, whatever the result of the next election, the Greens will be nowhere near the Treasury benches. I'd rather see the Labor Party in majority government than the Labor Party sharing government with that mob—absolutely. I think that would be shared by most sane, sensible people across this nation. Those people in those inner-city electorates who even think of putting the Greens somewhere on their ballot paper other than last need to think again. What also really needs to happen is that Labor members ought think carefully about where their preferences go. In a federal election you need to number every box, but number those very carefully; give it very solid and serious consideration. That's going to be so important.

It's no secret that the Greens are opposed to AUKUS. I know that former prime minister Morrison was criticised for some of the things that he did, but I will defend him until my dying breath because I know the work and effort that he put in during COVID-19. I know that because I saw it; I was right beside him in all those meetings when we were told tens of thousands of Australian could, potentially, die within weeks if we didn't do something. I respect the leadership that he showed and the tremendous effort he went to to put the nation first. That's why the John Hopkins centre rated us second in the world for our COVID-19 response. We kept Australians alive, we kept the doors of business open and we kept Australians in work. That is the legacy of Scott Morrison.

I also know the work that he went to, behind the scenes, to forge a deal with the United States and with the United Kingdom on our defence initiatives—on the things that we have in common with those two great nations. Rest assured that AUKUS is such a good policy that it was adopted by those opposite when they got into power. If it weren't, they would have shelved it—trust me! But they knew that it was the right thing to do, they knew that it was the right investment and they knew that it was the right time and place to do it. That relationship with Washington and with London is so important for Canberra. It's so important because it's going to underpin our defence and our security in the future. National security and the protection of the Australian people is first and foremost the duty of every government, or it should be. It won't be if the Greens have anything to do with power-sharing arrangements after the next election or after any election any time in the future.

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 is legislation that is important. It's legislation that I know the shadow minister has foreshadowed amendments to, and I respect those amendments and I agree with those amendments, because this is too important to muck up. It's too important to get this wrong and too important to let any power-sharing arrangements tamper with or have any ill effect on our national security and defence.

I'm pleased to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. The defence of Australia, its people and its interests is the government's most important responsibility. Australians should be assured that their parliament has an important role in debating such matters of national importance, including Australia's involvement in international conflict. This bill increases the transparency and accountability by government regarding decisions and policies relating to the defence of our country. In a Westminster style democracy such as ours, parliament plays a crucial role in providing this by scrutinising and debating the decisions by executive government and the implementation of them by departments and agencies. This scrutiny is important in ensuring best decision-making and the most efficient and effective use of taxpayer funds, along with a more informed parliament and, by extension, a better informed public.

The Senate estimates process has provided useful and necessary scrutiny of Defence, particularly major capability projects, over the years. It will continue to do so following the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. But, in the challenging and complex strategic circumstances we find ourselves in, it's necessary to ensure that parliament can also examine these projects and Australia's defence strategy in greater detail and depth, and in a more classified setting with the appropriate safeguards in place. This bill addresses that gap, injecting greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight of the Defence portfolio by establishing a parliamentary joint statutory committee on defence—the PJCD.

The establishment of a PJCD implements a recommendation from an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which I chair, into international armed conflict decision-making, following a referral from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence in December 2022. The inquiry, in turn, was initiated to deliver a commitment made by the Australian Labor Party to our national platform. This inquiry was very ably chaired by my colleague the member for Bruce, who spoke earlier in this debate, and in March last year the committee completed its examination of how Australia makes decisions to send service personnel into an armed conflict situation. The investigation took into account such things as the approach of similar Westminster system democracies, parliamentary processes and practices, and security implications of different decision-making models that could compromise ADF safety, operational security and intelligence or have other unintended consequences.

The power to declare war and send military personnel into conflict is arguably the most significant and serious institutional power and the gravest decision a government can make. Through our inquiry, the committee carefully and seriously considered fundamental questions regarding decision-making in relation to international armed conflict and parliamentary oversight both preceding and during the commitment of the Australian Defence Force. We found existing parliamentary oversight and accountability mechanisms for Defence and specified portfolio agencies to be inadequate in balancing accountability and transparency and national security considerations, including the risk of exposing information in the public domain that could be advantageous to potential adversaries.

To that extent, we concluded that there was a clear need to improve transparency and accountability of government decision-making in relation to armed conflict. We found Australia's system of parliamentary democracy to be likely to be kept healthy, effective and well adapted by making sensible changes that respect well-established institutions and conventions. Accompanying recommended changes to the Cabinet Handbook and new standing resolutions of both houses of parliament, we suggested the government had an historic opportunity to exercise leadership and establish what we call a joint statutory committee on defence to enhance Australia's national security while providing increased parliamentary scrutiny of defence. This new joint statutory committee would supersede and enhance defence related functions of the joint Standing Committee on Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade. We recommended that the new committee be modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, or the PJCIS, ensuring that it can request and receive classified information and briefings to improve parliamentary scrutiny of defence strategy, policy, capability, development acquisition and sustainment, contingency planning, and major operations.

As we said in the report, it's worth remembering that in 1988 Bob Hawke, then Prime Minister, created the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, rejecting advice of the Hope royal commission not to enhance parliamentary oversight of the intelligence agencies. History has proven Bob Hawke to be correct on this point. We encourage the government to emulate the former prime minister's example and to act to strengthen national security and enhance accountability of Defence to parliament.

We know that the Albanese Labor government is committed to transparency and accountability in this area. That's why the legislation is before parliament today. So it's pleasing to see the government's response to the international armed conflict decision-making recommendations to agree in principle or broadly agree with the report's recommendations. The government welcomed the principal finding that decision-making regarding armed conflict was fundamentally a prerogative of the executive. The government reaffirmed its commitment to improve openness and accountability and to ensure that parliament has effecting mechanisms to examine and debate such decisions.

In recognition of this and balancing transparency with timely decision-making, the government agreed to codify practices relating to informing the parliament about these decisions. In particular, the government agreed to the establishment of a new joint statutory committee on defence, the PJCD; hence the bill before us today gives effect to this, inserting a new part, VIIIAB, in the Defence Act to create the committee, consistent with the recommendations of the joint standing committee.

It is worth noting that previous inquiries have recommended the establishment of a statutory committee on defence. For example, in 2018 the Defence Subcommittee of the joint standing committee recommended establishing a similar joint statutory committee. However, the former coalition government responded in 2019 and disagreed with the recommendation, saying there were already substantial parliamentary oversight measures in place for defence and that additional measures to enhance bipartisanship were not necessary. So, where the former government was unwilling to take this up, the Albanese Labor government is willing to act.

In terms of how the PJCD will operate, the committee will replicate the PJCIS rules that stipulate a total membership of 13 with at least two government and two non-government members per chamber, with members to be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. That is really important. We envisage the committee membership would reflect the parliament, consistent with the PJCIS rules.

The PJCD will be responsible for reviewing, monitoring and reporting on the administration and operation of all Australian defence agencies, including the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Signals Directorate will remain subject to oversight by the PJCIS.

This bill establishes a broad range of functions that act as standing terms of reference for the PJCD which provide for greater oversight, transparency and accountability. The PJCD will also have the ability to inquire into other matters on referral by a minister or either house of parliament, as well as on its own initiative in the form of its own-motion power. In recognition of the significance of establishing a royal commission, the committee will be responsible for monitoring and reviewing on an ongoing basis the Australian government's response to the finding of any royal commission inquiry relating to defence. This will be very important with the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide reporting. It will be critical to monitor the implementation of the recommendations coming from that, and the PJCD will play a useful role here.

Like the PJCIS, the bill will allow the committee to receive classified information and briefings in the course of performing its oversight. This will require the committee to operate in private in some circumstances, with limits to be applied to information that might be provided to the committee and disclosure of information received by the committee to protect Australia's national security and tactical advantage as appropriate. The provisions of this bill relate to the administrative operations of the committee.

Pleasingly, the government has supported this new statutory committee with funding of $17.5 million over the decade from 2024-25 and $1.8 million per year ongoing. The costs will be met from existing defence resourcing and transferred to the relevant parliamentary department.

I have much respect for the shadow minister for defence; the previous speaker, the member for Riverina; and the subsequent speaker, the member for Fisher, who has done great work as the deputy chair of that subcommittee. But the position taken by the opposition on this bill is not just disappointing but, frankly, irresponsible. Given the current strategic circumstances we face, there is a critical need for a committee such as the PJCD, which can provide effective parliamentary scrutiny. That the opposition would stand in the way of the establishment of this committee just so they can make a political point is reckless and antidemocratic.

I don't want to name too many people on the crossbench, but I will say that I don't think it is appropriate to have a situation where a political party has a spokesperson for peace and nuclear disarmament but no spokesperson for defence to be on such a committee. I'm proud of the fact that I represent the men and women from the RAAF Base Amberley in my electorate and have done so for 17 years. I am proud of the contribution they make to Australia's defence and the contribution they make to Ipswich and surrounds. I believe our country is being served by two great political traditions: the Labor social democratic tradition, to which I subscribe and have devoted my entire life, and the Liberal conservative tradition, which those opposite believe in, which I respect but don't agree with.

Government and opposition have been formed by Labor and the coalition. This is really critical: there may be a circumstance when a crossbencher, suitable and appropriate, could be on this committee, and it is fundamentally antidemocratic to preclude them by way of statutory change. The government's position has been clear from the beginning. The committee recommended it be modelled on the PJCIS, which has enjoyed long bipartisanship support—as did the report which formed the basis for this particular bill to come before the chamber. It's disappointing, in view of the previous comments made by the shadow minister, the member for Canning—which the member for Bruce has outlined on a number of occasions earlier today. The member for Canning said:

The parliamentary scrutiny of defence is broken and needs fixing.

This is an opportunity to take this up today, and in the Senate, to make sure that we have a new joint defence committee.

Indeed, I've travelled in parliamentary delegations to a number of countries over the years, and I've met with defence committees in other countries that don't have the additional responsibility that we have in the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Those particular committees can get access to the kinds of classified materials that the PJCIS has, and which this new statutory committee for defence should have. This is simply the right thing to do, and it provides greater accountability and transparency. There are other countries in the world that do this. It's world's best practice. We should do this, and, frankly, the opposition should support this legislation. This lack of bipartisanship is very disappointing. I do not, in any way, say that to depreciate and undermine my confidence in and my respect for the member for Fisher, nor for the shadow minister and nor for the member for Riverina, all of whom, I know, have a long commitment to bipartisanship in this space and who have a strong commitment to the defence of our country. But this legislation should be supported by the opposition.

This bill, and the establishment of this particular committee, is an important step forward in parliamentary accountability and transparency in defence. It will strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of major acquisitions, such as frigates and submarines, and it will allow members to question senior Defence officials on important strategic settings. It's welcome and timely in the current international circumstances. I'm confident it will improve the long-term relationship and collaboration between Defence and parliament.

I want to acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, for supporting the committee's recommendations and bringing this critical reform forward. I want to pay tribute to the members of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, particularly to the member for Bruce, who has done so much work in this space, and to the member for Fisher, who has also done a lot of work in this space. I want to pay tribute to both of them. I thank the stakeholders and those who submitted it. We should be supporting this bill, and I hope the opposition will change their perspective.

I thank the member for Blair, to start off with, for his generous comments. I don't doubt the member for Blair's intent or his genuine concern in relation to this issue. He has been the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee since the government came in. I've spent a lot of time with him over the years, but, respectfully, on this point I will disagree with him.

Over the last five years, I've had the privilege of serving this parliament as either the chair or the deputy chair of the Defence Subcommittee for the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee—with the exception of the glory days when I was the Speaker! In those times, when we were in government, we sought to bring a number of changes to the subcommittee, whether it was under the late Senator Jim Molan or under the current shadow defence minister, or other members of the committee. When we were in government, we saw that the existing Defence Subcommittee was not working as it should. The member for Paterson would know that because she was my deputy chair for some time, when I was the chair.

I wish I had a dollar for every time a senior member of the Defence Force or Defence itself said: 'Sorry, Mr Wallace. We can't answer that question. We're not in the appropriate room, and you don't have the appropriate clearances.' How we could have civilian parliamentary oversight over our Defence Force and the Department of Defence in those circumstances is absolutely beyond me. The Defence Subcommittee, in its current make-up, is fundamentally flawed. It is broken. As we enter into what I think most people in this chamber and most Australians would recognise is the most dangerous geopolitical period since 1945, it is utterly inadequate to be in a situation where civilian parliamentary oversight of our defence forces is inadequate. We are on a ship and we are heading towards the rocks.

That's why, in a recent inquiry, both Labor members and coalition members agreed—it was a recommendation in the war powers inquiry report—that this committee be established. I want to congratulate the government on picking up that recommendation. It's a sensible recommendation, and I support it wholeheartedly. We must have greater parliamentary civilian oversight of our defence forces and the Department of Defence. That is a no-brainer. With the advent of AUKUS, and the amount of money that this country is going to be spending on the defence of this nation, we have to have appropriate civilian oversight.

So I'm on board with the bill, but it comes with a 'but'. This is not a matter of partisan politics. The government want to enable people who are not of parties of government, namely the crossbench and the Greens, to serve on this committee, and that troubles me deeply, just as it troubled me deeply when the government introduced a similar amendment to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which I am the deputy chair. I agree with the member for Blair in this regard. For these sorts of committees, which hear classified information at a top-secret level—both PJCIS and, if this committee ever gets up, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence—it is vital that they are able to hear evidence to a top-secret level and that we are able to question senior members of the defence department and ADF members. We can't be just blown off, as has happened to me so many times in this place. The importance of this committee, in my view, means it has to be constrained to members in this House who are members of parties of government. When you pull apart the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act, in relation to the establishment of the PJCIS and who sits on it, they are mirrored by the provisions of the PJCD—this new defence committee.

How do you get to be on this committee? Effectively, you are handpicked by the Prime Minister of the day, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. So it's very clear—and I think there's some more work to be done on all of this—that to serve on this committee you actually don't need a security classification. You don't need to be vetted by our security agencies, in the same way that the Minister for Defence or any other minister of the crown is not vetted. This is a flaw in our existing system. Because there is no vetting, we rely upon the Prime Minister of the day and his judgement and that of the opposition leader and his or her judgement to confer and say: 'Who's an appropriate person to be on this committee? Who do we know that will receive classified information at a top-secret level and not walk out of here and leak it to the media or, worse, leak it to foreign foes or, worse, use it as political leverage?'

There are provisions in the Intelligence Services Act and the Defence Act that would provide for serious terms of imprisonment for anyone who broke those laws. But what really, really concerns me is that the government is going to use the opportunity to appoint the crossbench—to appoint Greens and to appoint Independents—in the event of perhaps a hung parliament at the next election. That really worries me: 'You support me, you give me your number, you guarantee supply, and I'll give you a job on the PJCIS or the PJCD.'

No!

No, it could never happen, Member for Paterson! It could never happen! Well, do you know what? It is exactly the reason why this government is allowing for the appointment of crossbenchers to this committee.

There is no justification. The Greens will never form government in their own right. They'll only do that with the Labor Party. Independents will never form government in their own right. It is only the members of parties of government who should sit on this vitally important committee that will oversee the AUKUS arrangement, the largest defence procurement project ever undertaken by this government, at a time of the most geopolitical instability. It is the greatest instability since 1945, a time when government and opposition of either flavour need to work together to defend this nation. The PJCIS, which I've served on as the deputy chair, has never leaked in its 30-odd years of being in existence—not once. No member has leaked, because they knew, if they leaked, guess what? They'd go to jail. If they go to jail, it destroys their political career. Do you know what? I can't say the same about the Greens. It is the Greens' political manifesto that they want to abolish the ANZUS Treaty. They want to do crazy things, like remove joint military bases with the United States. That means no more rotational marine force in Darwin. It means no rotational submarine forces in the west, with either the UK or the United States. It means no more Pine Gap. It means no more North West Cape.

Looking at the importance of these military bases, not just to the United States but to the defence of this country, these arrangements have been in place for decades as a bipartisan arrangement that has secured the defence of this nation. The government's willingness to water down the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is of great concern. It will impact upon our very alliances with the United States and the United Kingdom at a time which is most dangerous. At a time when we need to gather together our friends and allies, the government, through this bill, and through wanting to allow crossbenchers to sit on this committee, fundamentally weakens our position and makes us vulnerable.

The bill itself is common sense. It's a good development and it should be encouraged. I want to extol and encourage those members opposite, in the government, when the member for Canning, the shadow defence minister, moves his motion to restrict members of the defence committee just to those from the parties of government, to accept that they got it wrong—to accept that national security should not be politicised and to accept that the defence of this country is so important that it shouldn't be traded as a political bargaining tool with the Greens to garner support for a minority Labor government. That's what this is all about: the willingness of the government to water down this bill and this defence committee by including the crossbench will do nothing other than make this country more vulnerable and subject to risk than it already is. Our foes—and, yes, we have foes—are watching this very, very closely. We cannot weaken on this point. I want to encourage those opposite to rethink their position on this. It's a commonsense approach. Don't weaken it for the sake of political expediency.

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. I came onto the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in August 2018. It was one of the highlights of my parliamentary career, being afforded the honour of going onto that committee. Speaking of honours, I had the honour of serving on that committee with the late Senator Jim Molan. Whilst we were, clearly, from very opposing political sides, I learnt a lot from Jim on that committee. In fact, he took me under his wing somewhat and I went on to become the deputy chair from opposition—not only of the defence subcommittee but then also of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

One of the inquiries that we undertook as the defence subcommittee in 2018 was into this very topic. The inquiry looked at making the defence committee a standalone statutory committee of the parliament. That was for the very reason that a number of members have pointed out in this debate today: we live in a world of increasing complexities within the defence and security arena, and in order to have adequate civilian parliamentary oversight of defence, it is necessary for the members of a future committee to be able to hear confidential and secret information.

When you look at the arc of history in relation to this, you see that this committee was first expanded by Gough Whitlam in 1973 to include defence and foreign affairs because we needed increased scrutiny of defence. The former prime minister, in 1973, said as much when he expanded the then committee. I think it is so important that we reflect on a little of this history. Since 1973 defence has been subject to scrutiny by the committee. The then prime minister, the Hon. Gough Whitlam MP, told the House that expanding the role of the former Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to cover the Defence portfolio indicated his government's desire to give parliament its proper role in the study of two important areas of national interest and concern.

In the 51 years since 1973, when the Whitlam government had the intention of providing oversight and scrutiny through a committee, the world has changed markedly. But what hasn't changed is the need for that oversight and scrutiny. I've had the great pleasure over the last few weeks of being present with the deputy speaker in the chair at the moment, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, in undertaking the National Security College course, through the Australian National University, looking at these very issues—secrecy versus oversight, and transparency in a modern world. How do we balance the need for secrecy in protection of our country—and we know we need it—with transparency? One of the examples given this morning by a member was the Iraq War. Was the prime minister of the day misled? How did it come about that we went into that war based on what we now know to be factual inaccuracies? We should never doubt that we need parliamentary oversight and scrutiny, because in a modern democracy it is this oversight by elected representatives that provides the foundation and the underpinning.

One other observation that has been made to me that I think is so interesting is that the PJCIS, which does very good work in the intelligence space, is a committee that works largely in a bipartisan way. That is because the members of that committee are privy to information that members of parliament normally wouldn't be privy to. Therein is the important message: there is detail, there is nuance, and when it is explained to members of that committee they are able to very deftly and accurately put forward legislation that will progress the security of our intelligence and ensure Australia has an adequately resourced and appropriate underpinning of legislation for our intelligence community. That is so important in the security of our nation, and that is the model being proposed by this legislation.

I get quite agitated when I hear members of the opposition saying the government is trying to water down this legislation and honeycomb this model. As we've heard, the PJCIS has worked very successfully. People have maintained the confidence of that committee, and that is exactly how this new defence committee will operate. The legislation will provide criminal penalties for leaking. The government is in no way trying to water down this new committee. It will be as robust as the PJCIS and will be reflective of our parliament, which I think is an important thing.

I just want to share some of Jim Molan's thoughts from that seminal report that we did back in 2018. I wish that members in the coalition would take some advice from one of their own. As I read these words, I can't help but think of Jim, wherever he may be, flailing against the decision of his counterparts. He fought tooth and nail to stand up a committee like the one that this government wants to deliver for the parliament. And I again say to those members opposite: if you won't listen to us on the government side, then please listen to the words of Jim Molan when he said:

… I now take responsibility for both the Report and this Foreword.

Through its committees, the Parliament discusses and debates complex areas of policy and can reach agreement on solutions that transcend party lines to advance the interests of all Australians. As part of this process, the Defence Sub-Committee is expected to exercise, on behalf of the Parliament, appropriate oversight of the entire defence function across Australia.

This inquiry seeks to move towards bipartisanship on defence policy and so provide greater long-term stability for Defence and its industry partners in the midst of the most significant upgrade of Australia's defences in peacetime. Our recommendation is that the admirable level of bipartisanship achieved within the PJCIS should be the objective of a revamped Defence Sub-committee—

that would in fact sit, as Jim explained it to me, within the model that we are proposing with this legislation. I will go on quoting Jim:

This inquiry on bipartisanship arose from the Defence Sub-Committee's 2017 Review of the Defence Annual Report 2015-16. That review highlighted the challenges this Sub-Committee faces in seeking to oversight Defence's implementation of the internal reforms arising from the First Principles Review and the progress of the $200 billion investment in new defence capability outlined in the 2016 Defence White Paper. We found that greater engagement between the Parliament and Defence would support the implementation of these vitally important reforms.

Now fast forward eight years, and we've had a defence strategic review and we have again had another raft of changes in Defence. We are putting more of Australia's hard earned tax dollars into Defence than ever before—two per cent of GDP—and it is absolutely vital that there is transparency and that there is parliamentary oversight. Australians place their trust in us as elected representatives to come here and do our best for them. But I remember Jim saying to me, 'You can't do that with one hand tied behind your back.' He meant you can't do that without access to information.

As the member for Fisher pointed out—he was the chair of the Defence Subcommittee when I sat as his deputy. Again, I'm sitting on the subcommittee and within the main committee, and I cannot tell you the number of times Defence has said to us—in fact, as recently as last Friday in an update on the fleet—'We'd really like to share more of this with you, but we simply can't.' That has to change. How can we possibly have reasonable oversight and scrutiny of our incredible Defence Force? I apportion no criticism whatsoever to Defence, but we do need to work with them and we do need to have all of the information so that Defence can continue to not only defend our great nation but also work with our industry partners.

Again, that was one of the things that came up all those years ago in 2018, when we did this review. We had a number of people from industry saying to us, 'The only way to really have a well-functioning and integrated Defence Force with industry and correct and appropriate parliamentary oversight is with the committee being fully briefed.'

Raytheon Australia highlighted the importance of increasing transparency to improve political debate:

The best way to encourage a shared political position on Defence capability is to ensure that transparency in the capability plan is maintained. One of the reasons parliamentary committee deliberations get bogged down on these issues is that the level of understanding on the part of committee members of Defence capability is often low. Maximum possible transparency would lead to more mature political discussion on capability and generate a more informed level of debate.

That was Raytheon Australia from that inquiry that we did back in 2018. This is also about defence literacy. We parliamentarians don't all come to this place with defence qualifications or experience. I want to recognise those members who sit amongst us who have worked for us either in the defence capacity or in defence industry. They have provided great service to our nation.

But there are those of us, like me, who represent places like Williamtown. RAAF Base Williamtown is not only the pre-eminent F-35 base in Australia; it also supports around 5,000 people in my seat who call RAAF Base Williamtown their place of employment. I made it my business, when I came here, to improve my defence literacy. I've done that over the last eight years of working closely with people from RAAF Base Williamtown, and I will always thank them for their patience with me and their instruction while I have been learning those things. I've also worked with colleagues and other defence personnel across the nation, and I have learnt that you don't know what you don't know. You need to seek information and be briefed.

That is why I am speaking so wholeheartedly on behalf of this bill. I know that people like Richard Marles, our defence minister, and people who formerly wore the uniform, like the late senator Jim Molan, are calling for it. If there is an alignment in the thinking of those two people, then surely the current leadership regime of the coalition would take that into account and understand that we're actually at a seminal, pivotal point in Australia's defence trajectory. We know the world is changing under our feet; it is moving. We need to have appropriate oversight. We do need to have scrutiny. It must come from democratically elected people. We must hold up the tenets of democracy. But the only way to do that successfully and genuinely in a bipartisan way is to have a statutory committee like the one proposed in this bill, where members are fully briefed and face criminal penalties if they leak from that committee. It is absolutely essential.

The member for Fisher and other members of the coalition have argued that leaving an opening for a member of the crossbench on this committee would weaken it. I will take the opportunity in this speech to argue the reverse. In the current iteration of this parliament, and with the current community sentiment around Independents, leaving an opening for a member of the crossbench on this committee will strengthen it.

Peter Varghese has had a long and distinguished career serving governments, both coalition and Labor. He was John Howard's foreign policy adviser and Director-General of the Office of National Assessments under both Mr Howard and Kevin Rudd and was then appointed by Julia Gillard to be the head of DFAT. He remained in that high office when the coalition came to power in 2013. Mr Varghese has been prepared to give the political leaders he served frank, fearless and objective advice regardless of which party they came from. He was respected, in short, by all he served and was rewarded for his intellect, insights and advice. Here's what he had to say about AUKUS in the Australian Financial Review, and it's worth quoting:

The real test of sovereignty is whether you can defend yourself and credibly deter an attack on your territory.

Is that what the nuclear submarines deliver? Or would it be smarter to design a defence capability, including the best conventional submarines, which may give us less to offer in a war in north-east Asia but which may be more affordable and more effective in the defence of continental Australia?

I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions. But I would have thought that before we took decisions as momentous as the AUKUS submarines that there would be a proper and forensic public discussion about other options and their underlying rationale.

It may be odd to argue that a decision to acquire a capability which will not be fully delivered for three decades, if all goes to plan, has been made with unseemly haste. No one on the inside would think so. They have no doubt crunched the numbers and the policy options.

But decisions of this magnitude can easily emerge in an echo chamber. And the biggest threat to good policy is a failure forensically to test assumptions and weigh options. Much of that can and should be done outside classified discussions.

'Unseemly haste' and 'echo chamber'—this is not the Greens talking; this is one of the most senior and esteemed public servants Australia has produced.

Our Defence budget is currently going through its most significant transformation since the 1980s, when we formally abandoned the doctrine of forward defence and replaced it with the principle of defence of Australia. It was an assertion of sovereignty, an assertion that we should be as self-reliant as possible. Now, almost overnight and with no debate at all, the previous government, with the acquiescence of the Labor Party, agreed to an entirely new approach which, as Varghese points out, reduces our sovereignty and ties us even closer to the United States.

To be clear, I'm not saying AUKUS is necessarily the wrong prescription but that very real and important questions remain—not least the question of whether it's right to put all our eggs in one basket for the next half-century, with a price tag of no less than $360 billion. These questions need rigorous analysis. As Varghese says:

What defence capabilities are we not getting because we have set aside some $360 billion for nuclear submarines?

We, the people, were never let in on this discussion, let alone debate, and it's not surprising then that the public should be ambivalent, at best, about AUKUS. A recent poll conducted by the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney found that 42 per cent of those polled thought that the AUKUS submarines are not worth the cost. At the same time, 46 per cent thought AUKUS is good for creating jobs. A poll conducted by the Lowy Institute got a different result, but still found that 32 per cent of respondents, a significant number, were opposed to the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines.

What I've outlined goes directly to the importance of bringing the public into our confidence, especially when it comes to defence and national security. It goes directly to the importance of setting up a committee and getting it right. More than 30 per cent of voters in this country no longer support a major party, and there is no sign of that trend ending—as much as the major parties would like to wish it away. Even polling today further indicates the entrenchment of this trend. That makes it even more important that this committee, which I regard as an excellent idea, reflects the way the nation votes and the composition of this parliament. Therefore, I would argue that the government has done a good thing by leaving the way open for a crossbencher to be a member of the committee. This is as it should be. I noticed that the shadow minister, in his second reading speech, dismissed the idea that it was legitimate for a member of the crossbench to be a member of the committee, and I note that the member for Fisher, who spoke earlier, did the same.

I'm a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee. I've reported on conflicts, civil unrest, displacement and national security across the world—in Africa, in South-East Asia, and indeed, on geopolitical matters in the United States—for decades. Why should I, or other crossbench members—reasoned, considered and professional people—be denied the possibility of being a member of this committee when major party members get an automatic slot? My colleague the member for Clark was a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security from 2010 to 2013 and behaved, by all accounts, impeccably—nothing leaked. The only question that has emerged in recent history has come from the coalition benches, when questions were raised about information received on an official committee trip to the United States and then raised under privilege in this House. Whether the information was in the public interest is not in question; the question is whether the material should have been used in this way. It also raises the innate question of a double standard in this debate.

Defence is a common theme among my constituents. Many of them raise the issue of AUKUS with me and they would like a full public airing about the way our defence budget is spent. From that point of view, my strong view is that this committee should accurately reflect the make-up of this parliament. It is also important to note that the legislation does not specifically allocate a position on this committee to a member of the crossbench. All it does is not prevent the Prime Minister from choosing to allocate a position on the committee to a member of the crossbench. Again, my strong view is that to allow that is to strengthen, not weaken, the committee.

I would also like to go to the member for Fisher's point, suggesting that a position on this committee could be used as a form of transactional politics in the event of a hung parliament after the next election. With respect to the member, I think that is an outrageous suggestion—to consider that a member of the crossbench would somehow trade away their independence in order to get a seat on that particular parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, I think the very suggestion goes to a culture of politics in this place that perhaps doesn't exist on the crossbenches and perhaps does in other parts of this House. For a member's mind to even go to that says a lot about the mentality in this place, the ethics of members and the kinds of considerations that they might consider when making decisions.

I would also make the point that one key issue during the campaign in the lead-up to the 2022 election in my electorate of Goldstein was fragmentation of public trust in political leaders. I think that the key reason that members of the crossbench were elected at the 2022 election—and, indeed, before, in the member for Indi and also the member for Warringah—was that people wanted direct representation from their members and a degree of politics done differently. So for the coalition to be suggesting that members of the crossbench are in some way less trustworthy—more likely to leak information from a committee as it relates to national security—is downright offensive and I think would be seen as downright offensive by members of our communities who have elected members of the crossbench as Independents to represent them directly. The reason it is critical, I think, to have a member of the crossbench on a committee like this is so that the bipartisan groupthink on defence that currently exists between the major parties is not allowed to progress unfettered.

As a former journalist, my strong view—apart from not leaking—is that questions need to be asked. This is critically important in a committee like this. The coalition's suggestion that it is more trusted than members of the crossbench is a bit of a joke, quite frankly.

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Over the weekend, between 28 and 30 June, Volunteer Marine Rescue Bundaberg had their Family Fishing Classic, and it was an absolute cracker again. Now in its 17th year, it's gone from 400 participants to more than a thousand. It is their biggest fundraising event. VMR Bundaberg actually celebrated their 50th anniversary in 2022. It's incredibly important that they continue to find that support in an area that's renowned for its access to the ocean, to great fishing and to great ocean sports.

The classic started in 2006, initially to raise funds for a new vessel, but now they're giving boats away. Congratulations to Kevin Charteris. He won one of the prizes—a big boat. Good luck to Kevin. I saw a photo of a group who caught a group of big reds. We're not talking about members of the Communist party; we're talking about red emperors, the best table fish in the world. They are cracking eating and absolutely fabulous. If you have a look at the live scoreboard, you can see progress—junior, senior, live or dead. I'm not talking about the participants but the fish that they bring in. It can be bream, whiting, flathead or trumpeter. The list includes tuna, parrot, snapper, red emperor, sweetlip and coral trout in the open section. Of course, it's very strongly contested.

Congratulations to the sponsors: Tayco; Seven News; Tackle World Bundaberg; Bank of Queensland, Bundaberg; and Boats Galore. There are many more. I can't get through them all, but thanks for your support of VMR Bundaberg. It's an incredibly important volunteer group.

Namaskaram and hello. Recently, the Malayalee Association of Victoria held its golden jubilee, celebrating its 50-year anniversary. Holt is home to the largest Malayalee community in Australia. That is why I am thrilled to join them in their celebrations. Since being established 50 years ago, MAV has celebrated large festivals, run sports competitions and raised money for charitable endeavours. As a migrant, I know too well the impact that cultural organisations have had in keeping me connected to my culture, and MAV has done a fantastic job in providing this for thousands of members of the Australian Malayalee community.

My first time attending a MAV event was the 2022 Onam at Springvale Town Hall, where I was impressed by the scale and intricacy of the festivities. Thank you to President Madanan for inviting me along. The success of MAV and the celebration of Onam, outside of Kerala, shows how far Australia has come in becoming a multicultural society—a society where everyone brings a little piece of themselves to build this great nation of ours. Happy 50-year anniversary!

I'd like to take this opportunity to bid farewell to one of my invaluable team members, Sally Short. For six years as an electorate officer, Sally has been an indispensable part of my team. Prior to working in my office, Sally spent 12 years in state electorate offices. I think we would all agree that 18 years in this game is a pretty big effort.

Sally's empathetic and caring nature has made her a pillar of support for so many of my Durack constituents, and her ability to listen and genuinely understand the concerns of our constituents is frankly admirable. Proficient at managing difficult portfolios and addressing complex issues, Sally has always approached her work with grace and determination. Sally's dedication to public service runs in the family, with her mother also having served as an electorate officer. Overcoming many challenges in her life, Sally has always handled them with a calm and thoughtful demeanour. Her deep love for animals is testament to her caring nature.

As Sally moves down south to her newly built home, we will deeply miss her presence in Geraldton. However, we are very excited for her new journey and know that she will bring the same passion and dedication to her new community. They will be very lucky to have her. Sally, thank you for being such a great team member and a fantastic teammate and for the service to Durack. We wish you all the very best in this next chapter of your life. Go forth and be the hippie that you are destined to be.

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The Albanese Labor government told Australians that, if we were elected, we would legislate a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. And we have. We have delivered on our election commitment to enhance integrity, honesty and accountability.

As a former police officer, I have always taken crime and justice seriously, and I have always valued integrity. When I speak to the people of Tangney, they have often talked to me about the importance of integrity and accountability. It was clear that there was a desire for an anticorruption agency and for integrity reform. We worked hard to ensure this commitment was delivered.

Today, we can say that the National Anti-Corruption Commission has been working hard for a full year. I will always advocate for trust, honesty and integrity. I'm honoured to have served on the committee for National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation and am proud to mark this day. We will continue to deliver our commitments and prioritise integrity in our government.

Des Moylan was a person of humble courage, boundless generosity and gentle grace. He knew his north star, and he followed it. Des volunteered for countless community organisations and stayed the course with all of them. He was a founding member of the Benalla branch of the Rural Australians for Refugees. While being wheeled into the operating theatre to undergo surgery for a brain tumour last year, his compassion for refugees shone through when he said to his son: 'We showed them, Matty. We got them out. It took 15 years, but we got them out.'

Alex McKenna, CEO of Cooinda Aged Care, said this: 'I would hate to think of the personal sacrifices that Des's kind nature has accrued over 17 years. Des always put others first.' When Benalla Centrelink offices closed, Des organised petitions and FOIs and, through my office, wrote letters to the minister to try get the office reopened. The last time I saw Des, just a few weeks ago, his last words to me were, 'Don't give up on Centrelink, Helen.' Des was an active member of the Benalla Social Dance Group and was always happy to guide those who were less confident and have a laugh together when things got muddled. Des was the greatest role model you could possibly find.

Des Moylan died in Benalla on 25 June 2024, aged 71 years. He was the loved father and father-in-law of Matthew and Sherwin, Emma and Tyler, Rose and Mohsen and Sophie and Daniel and the treasured Grandpa Des of Doris, Ruby, Harper and Luna. Vale, Des Moylan.

Get ready to pedal into some fun! The Social Women's Intercultural Friendship Tricycling (and Bicycling) Club, also known as the SWIFT Club, celebrated their first anniversary over the weekend. The club was founded last year by cancer survivor Nyan Thit Tieu after the great success of the 2022 UCI Road World Championships in Wollongong. With the support of the Illawarra Cycle Club, the Illawarra Yacht Club, Port Kembla Sailing Club, IBUG, Cycling Without Age, JulesCycling, the Disability Trust, Fornix Wheels and all levels of government, Thit's vision has been able to come to life.

The club first started to aid the recovery of cancer survivors but has grown to include a very diverse range of people from many multicultural backgrounds. The chairperson for SWIFT, Dr Farhannah Aly, has plans to further the inclusion by running an event in conjunction with the Coomaditchie United Aboriginal Corporation for a trike and yarn circle. SWIFT has given women a safe, supportive and welcoming environment to meet new people and remain active. The club has a fleet of tricycles for people who have never ridden a bike before or who have lost the ability to ride due to illness or lack of confidence. SWIFT Club meets every Saturday for a ride, and after the ride members enjoy a coffee and a chat together. I give a big congratulations to Thit, Farhannah and all the team at the SWIFT Club for reaching this milestone. I can't wait to see what you achieve next year.

On 7 July, NAIDOC Week begins across Australia, celebrating and recognising the history, culture and achievements of our First Nations peoples. I would like to start by acknowledging and paying my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri Elders of the Canberra region, where parliament gathers, and to traditional Elders all around Australia. The theme for this year's NAIDOC Week is Keep the Fire Burning! Blak, Loud and Proud. Fire is a symbol of connection to country, to each other and to the traditions and cultures that define our First Nations people. To celebrate NAIDOC Week in Warringah, there will be First Nations music, dance, art and storytelling workshops, as well as film screenings run by local councils.

Whilst last year's result for constitutional recognition was disappointing, we cannot further our national journey of reconciliation if we do not listen, engage, and reflect. I know that Warringah takes this issue to heart, as our community overwhelmingly voted in support of that constitutional recognition. My office continues to progress reconciliation by implementing a reconciliation action plan. It will focus on four core pillars to provide tangible benefits to our First Nations people in the electorate of Warringah: relationships, respect, opportunities and governance. I encourage all businesses, other parliamentarians and organisations in Warringah to do the same and enact a reconciliation action plan.

Today I rise to recognise the Bourke Road General Store in my home town of Umina, which just celebrated its 70th anniversary. On Saturday 22 June, current owners Michelle and Matthew Overton put on a great party to celebrate this fantastic milestone. There was music performed by Jason Hicks, treats provided by local Lena and even a special appearance by 94-year-old Betty, the daughter of the original owners, who first opened the store in 1954.

I love to get out in my electorate and support local businesses, especially one that has been operating for so long. I have very happy memories of visiting this store with my family when I was a kid. The Burke Road store has a long history, originally built as a house by the Adams family in 1920. It was named 'Plymouth', after Mrs Adams's home town. The Adams family slowly turned their home into a shopfront and a grocery store.

The store has now been operated by the same family for the last 27 years. Current owners Matthew and Michelle have transformed it into the boutique store that locals love today. Independent local stores are an integral part of our community and provide locals with not only a place to shop but also a space to come together for a cup of coffee or a catch-up. Congratulations, Bourke Road store. I wish you well for the next 70 years and beyond.

As many would know, I am the co-chair of the 'parliamentary enemies of diabetes'. I'm joined by my co-chair, the member for Moreton. Today I'm here to inform the House that I've just put on a constant glucose monitor—about two hours ago. Thirty minutes ago my blood sugar content was 4.2 millilitres per milligram. I've since had a ham, tomato and lettuce sandwich, and I'm back up to 4.8 and holding steady. But that isn't to make fun of this. The point is that these devices, continuous glucose monitors, have changed the lives of diabetics with type 1 diabetes around Australia. At the moment there is lobbying going on for type 2 insulin-dependent diabetics to get the same access to the monitors. It's something that this parliament should consider.

The point of me trying it is to give it some publicity and to try and understand what people with diabetes go through on a daily basis. Now, I don't need to prick my finger all those times a day; I've just got to wear this fantastic little monitor on my sleeve. Congratulations to those who have developed the technology and to governments for delivering it to type 1 diabetics. It's time now to sit down and talk about those type 2 insulin-dependent diabetics. I thank the member for Moreton so much for joining me for that.

Labor's tax cuts begin today. No matter who you are or where you work, under Labor you'll pay less tax from today. We know how hard it is for Australians to pay for essentials: rent, mortgages, food and bills. We know some people are having to choose between paying their rent and seeing their GP or paying for essential medicines. That's why the Albanese Labor government is ensuring that working- and middle-class Australians don't miss out on tax benefits. There will be a tax cut for every taxpayer.

In my electorate of Wills, 78,000 people will receive a tax cut, and 85 per cent will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor's tax cuts. Every working Australian will pay less tax on the first $45,000 they earn. That means that part-time workers earning $40,000, such as waiters and waitresses, retail workers and cashiers in grocery stores, will get a tax cut of $654. Under the Morrison coalition plan, these people would have received absolutely nothing.

We're also providing Australians with a $300 energy bill rebate and cheaper medicines, increasing the number of bulk-billed appointments, wiping around $3 billion in student debt, ensuring more fee-free TAFE, providing higher income support payments, providing a better deal for parents by paying super on paid parental leave and delivering the largest increase to rent assistance in 30 years. Tackling the cost of living is my No.1 priority, and it's this government's No. 1 priority.

I'm very pleased to see the Burnside council moving into what I think will be the final stages of consultation for the upgrade of the club rooms for the Kensington cricket club and Burnside rugby club at the Kensington Gardens Reserve in my electorate of Sturt. I was very pleased to secure a $3.6 million Commonwealth contribution towards this upgrade. These are two great clubs that have been working very hard to get a much-needed upgrade to their facilities, which are decades and decades old, and, in particular, to facilitate the great growth of female participation in both of those clubs.

Now, the Kensington cricket club, if it's not well known to all those here, is famous for being the club of the great late Sir Donald Bradman, who lived within walking distance of the Kensington Gardens Reserve. He's one of the many famous members and contributors to that great cricket club. The Burnside rugby club has a great and proud tradition in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide as well. They deserve this upgrade.

We're now moving into what I think will be the final stages, where we'll actually see the bulldozer go through the old building and the shovels go in to dig the foundations to build what will be a great new recreational community asset for members of both those clubs and the broader Burnside council community. I commend all those who have been a part of achieving what we have so far and I look forward to seeing this project delivered.

What's the best cure for the winter blues? To the list of sunshine, exercise and good food, we can add money! From 1 July, today, every Aussie will be getting a tax cut. A nurse on $76,000 will be getting a tax cut of just over $1,500, a teacher on $87,000 now will be getting a tax cut of just over $1,800 and a sparky on $93,000 will be getting a tax cut of just over two grand. Pay down your debt, pay your bills, save up for a holiday or buy an air fryer—whatever tickles your fancy.

New parents get an extra two weeks of paid parental leave, taking it up to 22 weeks—more time with bub, more time with each other and more money. What can be better than that? Every household will be getting $300 off their energy bills.

Aussies work hard. They want to upskill and reskill. They're flocking to our free TAFE courses and they're going to uni. We are acknowledging their efforts with a tax cut and a HECS credit for three million students. That's what rewarding aspiration looks like.

There are 2.6 million workers who will be getting a pay rise. This will be their third consecutive one, adding an extra $143 per week to their pay. For the quiet heroes of the pandemic, what's better than thanking them is actually giving them a pay rise, and we are.

Guess who opposed all of this? That's right; under the Libs, Aussies worked harder for longer, with their pay flatlining. Labor wants Aussies to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

We've got a new financial year and more failures from the Labor Party on housing. We've got a government that's got no idea about housing. That's why it's never been more difficult to rent and it's never been more difficult to save for a home. You never hear anything from this government about first home buyers. But today's the first day that Labor's very lofty aspiration of 1.2 million homes starts. It will require 240,000 homes this year. What did we see last year in approvals? We saw 160,000; that's a drop to the lowest levels we have seen in over a decade. What do Labor want you to believe? It's that they're going to have a stunning form reversal and that, all of a sudden, dropping housing approvals and fewer homes being built is overnight going to lead to record levels of home building—to 1.2 million.

This so-called promise is already over. It's been trashed. It's yet another promise from this government that is not worth the media release it was written on. A typical family in this country with an average mortgage is $35,000-a-year worse off. It has never been more difficult to buy a home, and, if you want to find a rental in our major capital cities, you go and join a long queue, because this government has no idea about housing, and, sadly, it's going to get worse this year.

Happy 1 July to the residents of Fraser and, indeed, all Australian households. This 1 July is particularly important, as all taxpayers in Fraser will be receiving a significant tax cut. We understand that people are doing it tough. Our refined stage 3 tax cuts will ensure that taxpayers who need relief the most will get it, as opposed to the plan supported by those opposite, which would have seen benefits largely going to high-income earners. If you earn $45,000 you will receive an annual tax cut of over $800 from today; that's compared to absolutely nothing if the plan of those opposite had gone ahead. If you earn $70,000 you'll receive an annual tax cut of over $1,400, compared to just $625 according to the plan of those opposite. Eighty-seven per cent of taxpayers in Fraser will receive bigger tax cuts under this government than they would have under the opposition's plan.

In addition, from today every household will receive $300 in energy bill relief, with $325 for small businesses. We know that high global energy prices are still being felt right around the country. Also, on this important 1 July, wages for those on minimum and award wages will increase by 3.75 per cent—a responsible and much-needed increase. With the tax cuts, wage rises and other measures, this government will help households earn more and keep more of what they earn.

The Albanese Labor government is failing hardworking Australian families. As we enter the new financial year we hear lots of those opposite promising that life will be easier in the future.

That's what they promised two years ago!

Of course, that's the same promise they made two years ago, as I am reminded. But hardworking Australian families and small businesses know the truth. Australians can't afford this ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Labor's cost-of-living con job is hurting Australian families.

Australians are poorer since Labor came to power. Under Labor, prices have gone up by nearly 10 per cent. Australians are paying 20 per cent more personal income tax. Employee real wages have collapsed by nearly nine per cent. Living standards have collapsed by nearly eight per cent. Household savings have collapsed by nearly 10 percentage points, and homeowners with a typical mortgage of $750,000 are nearly $35,000 worse off under this government. Labor have had three failed budgets. This inflation is homegrown. This is Labor's inflation. This is 'Jimflation'.

Australians have had five consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. It keeps going. We're the only G10 country that has seen inflation go up since December. This is an absolute indictment on this Labor government.

To all the Northern Territorians watching or listening, and to the Territorians up in the gallery, I say: happy Territory Day! Territory Day is 1 July. In 1978 we gained self-government. That's been a fantastic journey for us. There's still work to do; a bit more political representation in this place would be nice. The Territory is so full of potential and opportunity that I encourage everyone to get up there. On this day up in the Territory everyone will be letting off fireworks and having heaps of fun. Do so safely, please; I know you will.

In the gallery we've got a couple of councillors from the City of Darwin; I give a shout-out to Jimmy Bouhoris and Ed Smelt. Importantly, we've got the future here. Annie Nankivell has been working in my office. She's about to leave my office soon; she's going on to start her career in nursing. It's been a delight, Annie, to have you in the office. Thanks very much for all your great work.

Territorians have a couple of other great things coming today: tax cuts for everyone, a pay rise for lower-income workers, and increased paid parental leave. There's a lot to be excited about with the Albanese federal Labor government. (Time expired)

The Reef HQ Aquarium is the largest living aquarium in the world. This Labor government has failed the people of Townsville. This project, which had $80 million delivered by the coalition, for refurbishment, was ready to go. The new government took over, and they said, 'We want to do this project differently. We're going to knock it down and rebuild it.' That costs more, but not a dollar was invested then, and not a dollar has been invested now. The office of the Minister for the Environment came out and said that the former government didn't fund this project correctly. Well, Senate estimates revealed that that was a lie.

The people of Townsville are angry, and rightly so. There have been a couple of petitions circulated, with more than 10,000 signatures. I seek leave today to table one of those petitions.

The normal process is to advise the government of tabling, but in this case that hasn't occurred. Is leave granted?

While the member has failed to go through a process that he knows very well—which, obviously, doesn't extend respect to a range of people in this parliament—on this occasion leave is granted.

It shouldn't take a petition from thousands of people to get this government to do its job. Townsville wants the Reef HQ to be fully built and operational, and it needs to happen now. (Time expired)

It's 1 July. It's a day when every taxpayer will get a tax cut, it's a day when the minimum wage rises for 2.6 million hardworking Aussies and it's a day when $300 in energy relief starts to flow to every household in the country. For the people of Bennelong and northern Sydney, there's one other cost-of-living relief measure to highlight. Today the urgent care clinic at Top Ryde becomes a Medicare urgent care clinic, one of 89 federally funded urgent care clinics across the country. That change is really important. A Medicare urgent care clinic at Top Ryde means seven-days-a-week extended hours presentations. It means people can walk in and it means shorter waiting times. And it will be completely bulk billed.

Last year, almost half of the presentations at Ryde Hospital emergency were for semi-urgent or non-urgent matters. At a time when we need to reduce pressure on emergency departments, particularly as the Ryde Hospital ED is under reconstruction, this investment by the government is vital. If locals or their loved ones have sprains, burns, cuts, infections or a minor break: head to the Top Ryde Medicare urgent care clinic. It'll save you time and it'll save you money.

Be it cheaper medicines, higher wages, energy relief, help with household electrification, tax cuts or increases to rental assistance, on this side of the House we want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

I rise today to ask the government what has happened to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Where has it gone? Has it disappeared? Remember, this was the bill that was absolutely urgent—that needed to go through the parliament in 24 hours. It was going to force detainees to cooperate with their removal, and it was going to list countries who wouldn't take their detainees back. It was so important because it would keep Australians safe, the government said, and it would fill a big gap. Well, what's happened? Aren't you going to still try and keep Australians safe? Aren't you going to try and fill that big gap? Prime Minister, what has happened to this bill? Is it hiding under a wet lettuce leaf?

We don't know what has happened to this bill. It seems to have just disappeared. All the urgency that was required, all those ministers—what has happened to this bill? Are you afraid now of keeping Australians safe? Don't you want to return detainees to the countries they came from? Where is this bill? Can anyone answer—anyone? I ask someone to step forward and tell us where it is. This was urgent. You wanted it through the parliament in 24 hours, yet it has disappeared. Can you tell us, Prime Minister, where it has gone? Are you still determined to keep Australians safe or not? Bring the bill back on!

From today, every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut, thanks to the Albanese Labor government, and every household will get $300 in energy bill relief. In my electorate of Corangamite alone, 70,000 taxpayers—every single taxpayer—will get a tax cut. For a nurse in Drysdale on $75,000, this means a tax cut of $1,554; for a hospitality worker in Torquay on $30,000 a year, this means a tax cut of $354; and, for an apprentice tradie on $55,000 a year, this means a tax cut of $1,054. That's not all; 2.6 million workers on award and minimum wages will get a pay rise from today and their six months paid parental leave. We're also holding supermarkets to account, with hefty penalties and price monitoring so you get the best deal and so do our farmers. We're working hard to increase housing supply, helping renters and first home buyers. We have an ambitious national target to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade to improve the lives of our most vulnerable and provide more cost-of-living relief for you because we want you to earn more and keep more of what you earn.

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

I inform the House that the Minister for Skills and Training will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations will answer questions on his behalf.

I'm pleased to inform the House that today and every day this week we are lucky to be joined by representatives from local councils, including hardworking councillors and mayors from across Australia, who are gathering in Canberra this week for the annual National General Assembly of the Australian Local Government Association. I don't propose to acknowledge every single mayor and councillor that is visiting, but each day I shall be recognising collectively all of the hardworking mayors and councillors. Welcome to you all.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Prime Minister. How many Australian families are currently on electricity hardship plans?

Every single household will get $300 of energy bill relief from today. They won't just get that; every single Australian who is a taxpayer will get income tax relief—tax cuts that those opposite opposed.

Order! The Prime Minister will pause, and I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

On relevance: to be fair to the Prime Minister, it's not every Australian, but it is 127,000 families who are facing hardship at the moment.

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has been asked a question. The Leader of the Opposition took the point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.

Every single person that the Leader of the Opposition just named will get energy price relief—energy relief that those opposite voted against, like they voted against relief last year, which we introduced in partnership with every state and territory government. Those opposite have opposed every bit of support that we have provided in cost-of-living relief. They opposed cheaper medicines. They opposed energy price relief. They opposed wage increases. They opposed our income tax cuts for every taxpayer. Whatever the issue is they say no to it. And then they have the hide to come in here and say they care about the cost of living. They don't care about costs of living. If they did, they would vote for cost-of-living support. But they have opposed every single measure. We expect that that's the case because, while we are supporting Australians, they're cheering against them.

My question is to the Prime Minister. What cost-of-living relief can Australians expect from today, and how will it make a difference? Have there been attempts to undermine the Albanese Labor government's measures?

I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. Indeed, from today, there will be a tax cut for every taxpayer, all 13.6 million of them. We remember full well those opposite saying they opposed it before they knew what it was, then saying they would roll it back, then saying there should be an election on the basis of it, before they then voted for it, and then, prior to last week at the CEDA conference, saying that they'd have their own tax relief plan. But of course it took a question in Q&A at CEDA here, the conference last Thursday, for the Leader of the Opposition to roll that back as well. It was bit like his energy plan, where he said, 'Oh, well, it might be just too hard from opposition to have a policy that is costed. It might be just too hard.' That is what he had to say. So there is not just a tax cut for every taxpayer but a pay rise for 2.6 million workers on award wages today, because we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That is our commitment.

In addition, we have our energy price relief of $300 for every household. We have the freezing of PBS medicines. Remember the 60-day dispensing that those opposite said would lead to pharmacies being shut right around the country? In addition to that, we have an extra two weeks of paid parental leave, something that those opposite would never have provided support for. And, of course, in addition to workers earning more and getting to keep more, they also get a top-up in their superannuation from today.

Over the weekend I was in Melbourne, in Gellibrand, in Holt and in Deakin, talking to people. I dropped in at Captain's Choice Fish and Chips. I had a coffee at Culinaria Cafe. I spoke with the workers at the community centre. I met the owners, good Italian Australians, in Pierre's Free Range Meats. I had a banh mi at Ms Banh Mi and a sausage roll from Paul's Pies. I got my glasses fixed at Eyewear Architects optometrist and I thank them for it. And I spoke to the pharmacist at the Chemist Warehouse about cheaper medicines. In amongst all the discussions that were held, all of those people appreciated the tax cut that they are receiving from today. All of them appreciated the support because they know, if their local member had their way, they would have got nothing whatsoever.

The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. I would like to hear from the member for Fairfax.

My question goes to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised Australians a $275 reduction in household power bills every single year. Yet, starting today, households in New South Wales will pay up to $1,000 more than promised, Queensland up to $948, South Australia up to $958 and Victoria up to $657 more than promised.

Government members interjecting—

The member will pause. Members on my right have been continually interjecting. Members know that it is highly disorderly, particularly when I'm trying to hear the question. We'll start the question again. The member for Fairfax has the call. The clock will be reset.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question goes to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised Australians a $275 reduction in household power bills every single year. Yet, starting today, households in New South Wales will pay up to $1,000 more than promised, Queensland up to $948, South Australia up to $958 and Victoria up to $657 more. Will the Prime Minister come clean and concede his promise will never be met?

Implicit in that question from the member for Fairfax is that, if you just have a nuclear reactor in every state, in every electorate, sometime in the 2040s, it will all be fixed. I hope the member for Fairfax has told his constituents in his electorate that the member for Hume deliberately changed the law to conceal from them, ahead of the last election, a 20 per cent increase in their electricity bills. I hope that he has apologised to constituents for voting against the energy bill relief that has provided support at a time where we have seen global energy prices increase. But I hope he told them as well that he was against the cap on coal and gas prices, and against the rebates for households and businesses. I hope he's told his constituents that his policy is to invest billions—who knows how much, because we haven't seen anything—of taxpayer dollars in the most expensive form of new energy. And I hope he has tried to find a single business leader from the energy sector who has said that his plan stacks up at all.

This is what the chief executive of Alinta Energy, Jeff Dimery, had to say—

Member for Fisher! The member for Fairfax is seeking the call on a point of order, and I'd like to hear his point of order.

It is with regard to relevance. The question asked the Prime Minister if he will come clean and concede that his promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills will—

Resume your seat. The Prime Minister was asked a question about—

Manager of Opposition Business, I'm trying to deal with the point of order. If you could assist me, I can assist you. The question was about reduction in power and mentioned the price of power, particularly regarding certain states, and the issue of people paying more. Then there was a question about the Prime Minister's commitment and about his promises. The Prime Minister needs to make sure he's being directly relevant to the question and make sure his answer complies with the standing orders. The Prime Minister has the call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly am. These days the modern Liberal Party is against business having a voice. It's quite interesting. It's quite perceptive. This is what Jeff Dimery had to say:

We don't have time to get distracted by fringe voices anymore, or to get lost in the 'gonnas'—

…   …   …

We have to work with what we know today.

Nuclear is kind of like looking for unicorns in the garden. Energy Australia have said that they're 'committed to Australia's clean energy transformation, reducing emissions as quickly and affordably as possible while maintaining system reliability'. Origin said, 'Our primary focus is adding more supply from these mature low-emissions technologies.' AGL said that nuclear energy was not part of the company's plans, and:

AGL's ambition to add 12 gigawatts of additional renewable and firming capacity by the end of 2035 does not include nuclear energy.

No-one serious takes the opposition's plan seriously. It was done on the back of a beer coaster without any costing, without any detail and without any substance. (Time expired)

Mr Wallace interjecting—

The member for Fisher and the member for Fairfax were continually interjecting during that answer. I request them to cease.

My question is to the Treasurer. What cost-of-living relief kicks in from today? How will the Albanese Labor government's measures help ease pressure on Australians, and what approaches were rejected?

Thanks to the member for Spence not just for the question but for being an absolute champion for the working people and the families and the pensioners in his local community.

Today is a really important day, because from today there will be a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. From today there will be energy bill relief for every household. There will be a pay rise for millions of workers on awards. There will be cheaper medicines, and there will be an extra two weeks of paid parental leave. This is how you deliver cost-of-living relief, not with expensive nuclear reactors in 15 years time. The cost-of-living relief which rolls out today is substantial, is meaningful and is responsible. It is the cost-of-living relief that people need and deserve. It's how we ensure that people earn more and keep more of what they earn. We know people are under pressure, and, because we know people are under pressure, more help is on the way today.

We are especially proud of the changes we made to tax to make sure that every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut, not just some Australians. This is genuine tax reform that lifts thresholds, cuts rates, gets average tax rates down and returns bracket creep at the same time. It means that the average tax cut is $36 a week. An average family or an average household with kids will get $63 a week. If you're on 120 grand, you get $52 a week; on 100 grand, $42 a week; 80 grand, $32 a week. And people on low incomes get a tax cut that those opposite tried to deny them.

Here's the difference: if they had their way, some taxpayers would be missing out on a tax cut today. And when we changed it to say, 'We don't want just some people who are already good incomes to get a tax cut; we want every Australian taxpayer to get a tax cut,' the Leader of the Opposition was so filthy about that that he called for an election. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that she would absolutely roll them back in government. The shadow Treasurer said that he'd be taking to the election a policy which is consistent with the old stage 3, until last week, as the PM said. The Leader of the Opposition was asked about this and said, 'Yeah, nah.'

If they had their way, energy bill relief wouldn't be flowing. They voted against it last time. If they had their way, there would be bigger deficits, higher inflation and less help for people who are doing it tough. This side of the House takes a different approach. We are rolling out cost-of-living help. We are the fighting inflation. We are turning big Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses, and we're doing that without smashing the economy.

That cost-of-living help that arrives today is substantial, it's meaningful and it's responsible, and it means that we don't just acknowledge that people are under pressure; we're doing something about it.

Before we move to the next question, I'd just like to do some acknowledgements. I'm pleased to inform the House that in the gallery today is Ms Marwa Abdi Bashir Hagi, a sitting member of the Federal Parliament of Somalia. We are also welcoming Lachlan Miller, the state member for Gregory in the Queensland Legislative Assembly. And, in the Speaker's visitors gallery, I'm pleased to acknowledge two great Queenslanders: Ms Sallyanne Atkinson AO, the former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, and Ms Janine Walker AM, Chair of the Metro South Hospital and Health Board. Welcome to you all.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

This is a question for the Prime Minister. On Friday, it was a year since the parliamentary committee tabled 31 recommendations to reform online gambling, unanimously supported across the political spectrum. These recommendations included phasing out online gambling ads. My community is done with gambling ads, and the experts say partial bans don't work. The government has not yet taken any action. When will the government listen to communities and ban ads for online gambling?

I thank the member for Curtin for her question. Indeed, some 88,000 people in the member for Curtin's electorate will get a tax cut today, because every single taxpayer will get one. The member for Curtin knows I was in her electorate, a couple of weeks ago. I was talking with people whilst I was there about the economic challenges but also the opportunities that are there for WA to continue to be such an important part of our growing economy.

The member for Curtin, however, is wrong when she says we haven't done anything, because we have. We've been stepping out support when it comes to things like banning credit cards to gamble online to make a difference and save lives. We've done more in two years to tackle gambling harm than those opposite did in their almost decade in office. The Minister for Communications is working through all 31 recommendations that are in the report, making sure that relevant consultations occur with stakeholders—

It's been a year, and you still haven't responded.

The member for Cowper will cease interjecting.

including harm reduction advocates and industry, and we will continue to work through each of the recommendations which are there. But we have already done, in establishing BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register—some 24,000 Australians, over the last nine months, have registered. Eighty per cent of those people participating are under the age of 40. We have changed the new minimum classifications for video games for gambling-like content. We have introduced new evidence based taglines to replace the old 'gamble responsibly' lines which were there, and we've introduced nationally consistent staff training. We've forced online wagering companies to send their customers monthly activity statements outlining wins and losses. We've introduced a new voluntary industry funding model which will allow 30,000 additional people to receive support every year, and we've provided directly funding for specialist financial counselling to support people affected by problem gambling.

We'll continue to work on these issues—to work them through. I'm happy to continue to work with the member for Curtin in a constructive way. The member for Curtin always contributes to the policy debate that takes place in this country, and I know that my door and the door of the Minister for Communications—as it is with people across the parliament—are always open to her, because we recognise that what we need to do is more in this area. But we want to make sure that we get it right.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What cost-of-living relief, including to assist with energy bills, is the Albanese Labor government delivering? How is this different from other approaches?

I thank the honourable member for her question. I'm very pleased to tell her that, today, 2.7 million households right across Victoria will begin receiving the $300 energy bill relief, as every household across Australia will do. Also, as well as the tax cuts being delivered, today is the day that the default market offer and the Victorian market offer come into effect. When we combine the government's rebates and the Victorian market offer, that leads, on average, to a 23 per cent reduction in energy bills for Victorian households today—a 23 per cent reduction!

Now, of course, the default market offer that applies from today applies on 1 July every year, so today is the second anniversary of the 18 per cent increase that the member for Hume hid from the Australian people by changing the law before the last election. It's the second anniversary of that, which is a policy we reject.

Talking of policies we reject, we've had the little thought bubble of expensive nuclear energy from those opposite. All we've seen is the seven sites released—no costings, no modelling. But, to be fair—I always try to give credit where it's due—we saw a little—

Where's your modelling?

a little more policy from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fairfax—

No, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy will just pause.

Order! Members on my right. The member for Macnamara will cease interjecting—

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! I'm trying to deal with order in the House—if she could assist me, I'd appreciate it. The member for Fairfax does not need to yell during this answer or any answer. I'm going to ask the member for Fairfax, for the remainder of question time, not to interject anymore. He's had a good go. If he interjects one more time he'll leave the chamber. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has the call.

I was just saying that, to be fair to the member for Fairfax, he put out a little more policy on the weekend. We already knew that they would have a government owned instrumentality and that they were going to call it the 'independent nuclear authority'. But he also released on the weekend details that there's going to be a second agency, a government business enterprise, to own these nuclear power plants. How would you convince the Australian people that introducing the most expensive form of energy was going to lead to lower bills? He announced the name. It's going to be called 'affordable energy Australia', in keeping with the previous government's approach. It had the National Energy Guarantee, which didn't guarantee anything. It had the Climate Solutions Fund, which didn't fund any solutions. And they had the Underwriting New Generation Investment program, which didn't deliver a dollar or an electron or anything.

The fact of the matter is that no amount of spin, no amount of Utopia-style naming an agency 'affordable energy', when you're going to introduce the most expensive form of energy will lead to lower bills. We know that experts differ on whether they will increase bills by $200 or $1,000. That's what the experts say: between $200 and $1,000 worth of increases from their expensive nuclear energy policy. This sort of spin won't reduce energy prices. What reduces energy prices is real relief today, and that's what the Albanese government is delivering. What reduces energy prices are concrete, detailed plans like what we saw from AEMO last week. That's what reduces energy prices, not expensive reactors in 20 years time, not spin and not fake government organisations but real energy bill relief. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor, prices have gone up by nearly 10 per cent, employee real wages have collapsed by almost nine per cent, living standards have collapsed by eight per cent, a typical mortgage holder is around $35,000 worse off and mortgage arrears are at an all-time high according to rating agency Fitch. There is nothing on offer from the government that will reverse this damage. Prime Minister, why are Australian families paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence?

Even by the extremely low standards of the shadow Treasurer, to say on 1 July, the day—

Order. The Treasurer will pause.

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right. Members are entitled to take a point of order. I'm going to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

A point of order, Mr Speaker: the Treasurer is a serial offender. You are rightly committed to lifting the standards in this place, and that is not consistent with it.

A government member interjecting—

Order! Whoever is interjecting on my right won't be here if they continue that behaviour. The Leader of the House on the point of order.

Mr Speaker, I appreciate your previous rulings about personal reflections, but to not be able to argue whether someone has brought high or low standards to a question or debate would be effectively to say you can't have debate. Of all the moments in question time to object, what the Manager of Opposition Business has just objected to is just really odd. You can't have normal debate if you can't say whether or not someone's asked something reasonable or whether the standards are reasonable or not.

The Manager of Opposition Business does raise a good point about undignified personal attacks, which we've been dealing with in question time. The Treasurer simply talking about low standards doesn't fill that category, but I'm going to be making sure that if we stray into that territory, which the Treasurer knows more than anyone else, we will deal with that. I thank the manager for raising the point. I'm going to get the Treasurer back to the question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm happy to explain to the shadow Treasurer the contents of his own question. His question was about the last couple of years and what we're doing to turn it around. I'm happy to tell the House and I'm happy to explain to the shadow Treasurer once again what we're doing to help people who are under the pump.

I'll remind the House, once again, that when this government came to office inflation had a six in front of it and now quarterly inflation has a three in front of it. When we came to office there were huge deficits as far as the eye could see, and we've turned two of those big Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses.

I remind the House that when we came to office, it was at the end of a decade of deliberate wage stagnation and wage suppression because low wages growth was a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. When we came to office, real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent. They're now growing again. And they're not growing again by accident; they're growing again because this is a government which recognises that one of the most effective ways to help people with the cost of living is to make it easier for them to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Absolutely central to that and absolutely central to the question that the shadow Treasurer asked are the tax cuts that come in from today. That's why it is unsurprisingly unusual that the shadow Treasurer has asked a question about living standards on a day when we are easing cost-of-living pressures in at least five different ways.

Now we all remember, and I think the Australian people remember too, that when the Prime Minister and I and this cabinet and this government went into bat for Middle Australia and for people on low and middle incomes and we changed the tax cuts—and we took a political risk in doing that—we changed those tax cuts because we wanted to see a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer at the same time as we wanted to see wages growing in our economy.

A combination of that means that Australians are better off than they would have been under those opposite. Those opposite ran up a trillion dollars in Liberal debt with almost nothing to show for it. They presided over wage stagnation and wage suppression. They skewed the tax cuts to people who were already on high incomes and we've spent a couple of years trying to clean up the mess that they left us. Where that matters very significantly is in the fact that real wages were falling when we came to office. They're growing again, and they're a big determinant of living standards in our economy at the same time as we provide this relief.

I know those opposite are unhappy today because if they had their way inflation would be even higher and people wouldn't be getting this cost-of-living help that they need and deserve. We're proud to be rolling out this cost-of-living relief, and it starts to roll out from today. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government making medicines cheaper for Australians? How is this helping to ease cost-of-living pressures after a decade of cuts and neglect to health care?

I want to thank the member for Lingiari. She knows this is an important day because every taxpayer in her electorate gets a tax cut today, like a registered nurse working at the Alice Springs Hospital, who gets a tax cut of almost $1,600 or about twice what they would have received under the former government's plan, or a hospital orderly at Alice Springs, who will get a tax cut of almost $1,200 or more than three times what they would have received under the former government. The member for Lingiari also knows that we need to do more. That's why she promised her electorate at the last election that we would make medicines cheaper, and we've been busy over the last two years delivering on that promise.

In just our first three months, we slashed the maximum amount that millions of pensioners would pay for their medicines each year by 25 per cent. In our first 12 months, we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. In our first 18 months, we finally allowed doctors to prescribe common medicines for chronic conditions for a 60-day supply, not just 30, saving patients time and saving them even more money. Today, we're freezing the price of PBS medicines for up to five years to deliver even more help with the cost of living. Already, our cheaper medicines policies have saved patients well over $400 million at the chemist, and those savings will grow every single month. But the price freeze alone will save patients almost half a billion dollars more. We've also made more than 200 new and expanded listings to the PBS, making sure that Australian patients have access to the best available medicines at affordable prices.

Today, I'm delighted to announce that we're extending the cancer drug listing LYNPARZA to early breast cancer patients with a germline BRCA mutation. Sarah Powell, who is the CEO of Pink Hope, a well-known breast cancer charity, welcomed this listing and said this:

There has long been a need for a targeted medicine to treat BRCA-mutated early breast cancer patients …

…   …   …

… these patients are usually young and in the prime of their life—contributing to the community, active members of the workforce and often raising young children and caring for ageing parents, too.

I'm advised that about 300 patients will benefit from this listing and, without the listing, they'd be paying an extraordinary $69,000 for this wonderful medicine, this life-saving medicine. This listing, one of 200 we've made over the past two years, proves again that cheaper medicines aren't just good for helping with the cost of living; it also saves lives.

My question is to the Prime Minister. In three failed budgets, the Prime Minister has failed to tackle inflation, with bad decisions and the wrong priorities. Leading economist Phil O'Donoghue says:

… Australia is the only G10 country where underlying inflation has increased since December.

Prime Minister, why are Australian families paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence?

Order. The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The Treasurer is going to cease interjecting because the Prime Minister has the call.

I thank the deputy leader for her question, which contained a fair bit of imputation, let me say. What we have done is take inflation to almost halve it from what it was that we inherited. Instead of low-wage design being a policy feature of our economic architecture, as it was for those opposite, we support workers earning more. That's why we have supported three wage increases in the minimum wage in our submission to the Fair Work Commission in a row. We're pleased that, from today, that will make a substantial difference. Those workers will also get to keep more of what they earn.

What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said was worthy of not just the opposition in the parliament. The deputy leader said that she would oppose it. In one of her best, she said: 'We will fight this legislation in the parliament. We don't even know what it will look like'—you can't make it up! '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 fight really, really hard!' That was just before she voted for it.

What do those opposite have? They've got a tax policy designed to roll back tax cuts, they've got an IR policy designed to reduce wages, they've got a fiscal strategy designed to rack up debt, they've got a housing policy designed to wreck super, they've got a health policy designed to destroy Medicare and they've got a nuclear reactor plan designed to jack up power prices. That's the alternative. The difference in our approaches is very clear: earn more and keep more of what you earn, on this side, or work longer for less, over there. It's pushing wages up on this side or holding them down over there, and building more homes all over Australia over here or wrecking the superannuation system over there. It's cheaper, cleaner energy, which is what we want, or more expensive nuclear reactors sometime in the 2040s, which is what they want.

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting families who have recently welcomed a new baby, what cost-of-living relief is being rolled out to Australian families from today, and are there any risks to this support?

I'd like to thank the member for Robertson for that question. He knows, as we all do, that the arrival of a new baby is a very special time for a family. It's a time when parents require support to step back from paid work so they can focus on caring for their newborn. We also know it's a time that can place extra pressure on the family budget. That's why Labor's investment in paid parental leave is so critical. It provides families with extra support so they can focus on what's important to them.

From today, families are eligible for two extra weeks of paid parental leave, as the government scheme increases from 20 to 22 weeks. This means, over the course of their leave, families will now receive $20,150 to help them take time off work and cover some of the costs that come with a new baby. And we're not stopping there. We are further expanding the scheme to 26 weeks, and we will legislate superannuation on top of this. Our changes have been widely welcomed by families and advocates. The Parenthood, a leading parent advocacy group, said, 'Significant improvement, after no meaningful change to the policy over a decade, is welcome.' Playgroup Australia said, 'It's such a relief to see this policy finally come to fruition in Australia.'

Also from today, around 1.3 million low- to middle-income families will receive some extra relief, with a boost to their rate of family tax benefit. In addition, every household will see their power bill cut by $300 and every Australian will benefit from a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines. This is how you deliver cost-of-living relief, not by pushing up power prices with expensive nuclear reactors.

Those opposite pose a risk to Australian families through not only their expensive, risky nuclear folly but also their track record of cutting family payments through imposing year-on-year indexation freezes when they were last in government. They tried to deny families the ability to take both government and employer paid parental leave, calling them double dippers. It's only this side of politics that has a plan to deliver responsible and meaningful cost-of-living relief now—including, of course, tax cuts to every single Australian taxpayer starting from today. This will make a real difference to the 13.6 million taxpayers. We're giving them relief right now. This is good news for Australian families and this is good news for Australian taxpayers.

The Manager of Opposition Business?

I ask the minister to table the document she was reading from.

The Minister for Home Affairs is now warned. That is a completely inappropriate statement. Was the minister reading from confidential documents?

Yes.

Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that's disrespectful as well.

My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the disgraceful desecration of the Australian War Memorial and, in the last couple of nights, the Vietnam War memorial and the Korean memorial, what actions are you taking to condemn this and what actions are you taking to ensure that this does not happen again?

I thank the member for his question. I certainly condemn the criminal acts that have occurred at the Australian War Memorial and also on the Vietnam War memorial, the Korean War memorial and other war memorials as well in places like Sydney. I don't know what goes through someone's head in thinking that any cause is advanced by the desecration of what are sacred sites here in Australia. Our veterans and men and women who wear our uniform deserve our respect. The reason why we have those memorials is to enable Australians of different generations to learn from them, to go and to show respect and to honour those who have sacrificed their lives on behalf of us for our freedom, our democratic values and our way of life.

The Governor-General, in her speech earlier today in the Members Hall, spoke about the fact that, from the Prime Minister's office, when the doors are open, with the design of this building, you see right through the Members Hall, through the Great Hall, through the entrance of Parliament House and past Parliament House to the Australian War Memorial. That is not by accident. That is because in the decisions which people make in high office—in particular, governments—to send our men and women into danger we must always think about the impact that that has on those who undertake their duty on our behalf.

There have been a range of, frankly, idiotic criminal actions while the Middle East conflict has been going on. It is one thing, and there should be full prosecution about the denigration of officers and the denigration of other public buildings, but nothing is as bad as the desecration of those memorials. I thank the member for his question, and I hope sincerely that these people who are responsible are found, that they get the full force of the law, that they get the book thrown at them and that they get exposed publicly as well for who they are. We know what they are; they're unworthy, unworthy of having any respect and any leniency as a result of their own actions.

on indulgence—I join with the Prime Minister in the condemnation of these senseless acts. I thank the member for New England for the question and understand and acknowledge the very real concern he has, like every decent Australian has, about the scenes and what we've seen playing out not just at the War Memorial sites but also outside the offices of members of parliament, including the Prime Minister's office, what we've seen outside Jewish schools and what we've seen on university campuses and across society where these acts of anti-Semitism have taken place.

'From the river to the sea,' as the Prime Minister has noted before in this chamber, is an abomination. That comment is all about the elimination of a race of people. What the Jewish community is going through in our country at the moment is completely and utterly unacceptable, and the people who have committed these offences rightly stand condemned. As the Prime Minister rightly points out, unfortunately, there haven't been arrests that have taken place so far, and I hope that the police can double-down on their efforts to identify these people and to allow a very clear message to be sent to those of a similar mind that these acts are not to be condoned in our society.

Those men and women—the 103,000—who have lost their lives serving our nation have done so for our lifestyle to be maintained and for our life in this country to continue as it does today. We don't do their memory any service by what we've seen at the War Memorial, whether it's the Australian War Memorial or whether it is any commemoration of the life and sacrifice of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. They rightly stand condemned for these actions, and we hope that they shall not be repeated.

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australia's 2½ million small businesses, and what risky alternatives could undermine this support?

I do want to thank our terrific member for Bennelong for that important question, because he understands that small businesses are important to our nation's economy. Indeed, they're at the heart of the nation's economy and now contribute over half-a-trillion dollars to the economy each and every year. They're also at the heart of the government's decision-making. That's why, from today, 1 July, we are providing relief for small businesses. As of today, we've abolished 457 nuisance tariffs, cutting compliance costs, reducing red tape, boosting productivity and making it easier for businesses to do business. We're extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off, making it easier for small businesses to invest and grow. This is an extension of the support that passed the parliament last week for the last financial year. Of course, those opposite delayed this important support for small businesses. They dragged it out until the last minute and caused uncertainty for small businesses. After months of delay, I certainly hope that they're quicker with this $20,000 instant asset write-off extension. It's the certainty, of course, that Labor is providing with our $640 million support for small businesses as part of the budget. It's practical and targeted support, all laid out in our small business budget statement.

Of course, part of that is energy bill relief. We know, of course, that energy bill relief is being rolled out to households, but it's also being rolled out to small businesses, as it was last year, of course, with up to $650 for each small business, which, of course, those opposite voted against. They voted against higher energy prices for small business last year, and this year, we're providing $325 for around a million small businesses around the country in energy bill relief. Providing energy bill relief and a renewable energy future made in Australia is, of course, how you deliver real cost-of-living relief for small businesses—not by pushing up energy prices with nuclear reactors. Those opposite voted against the energy bill relief, as I said, and now, of course, they want to push up small businesses' power prices with nuclear reactors. They want to actually make the energy bills of small businesses go nuclear.

But small businesses are smart. They're innovative. But they do understand about nuclear power. They understand that it's too expensive and that it will take too long. Of course, our government will continue to support small businesses, and we're doing that with the energy bill relief, we're doing it with the instant asset write-off and, importantly, we're also providing an extension of mental health and financial counselling support of around $10 million for small businesses. We of course are legislating payment times that hopefully will be supported in the Senate this week, improving payment times of big businesses to small business.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the government's one-off $300 rebate that you claim will help all Australians with their energy bills starts today. CPI is still around four per cent, according to the ABS. We know the rebate in tax cuts your government announced will not be enough to pay for the increases in food, energy, petrol prices, rents and housing needs which many families in Fowler are facing. Will you guarantee struggling families in Western Sydney won't go backwards with the cost of living from today due to your government's announcements?

I thank the member for Fowler for her question. I'm sure that she would welcome the support for the 62,000 taxpayers in her electorate who'll get a tax cut today. Now, I'm asked whether that will make them go forward or back. That's extra cash in the pockets of 62,000 taxpayers, and for an electorate like Fowler, which has far fewer taxpayers than the national average—than my electorate, for example—on the top tax rate and far more who earn less than $45,000 a year—

Ms Ley interjecting—

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not need to interject with those sorts of comments. The Prime Minister is being directly relevant in mentioning the member's electorate.

Ms Ley interjecting—

The deputy leader is warned, and the Prime Minister will continue.

The decision that we made to change the tax cuts and their direction from the Liberals' tax cuts, which would have seen people miss out, will directly impact, in a positive way, members of the Fowler electorate. Every single household will benefit from the $300 reduction, every small business in her electorate will benefit from the $325 reduction, and anyone who has a child on way will benefit from the additional two weeks of paid parental leave. The elderly people in her electorate who rely upon PBS medicines will benefit directly from what we're doing with the five-year freeze for people on pensions and fixed incomes, while everyone will benefit from the one-year freeze.

In addition to that, every single worker will benefit from the increase in superannuation. All of that—higher wages and lower taxes—will benefit people in her electorate, and all of them were opposed by those opposite. I'm sure the member for Fowler will support the other changes that we have in mind, which are stuck in the Senate—like the additional money for housing, which remains there, and like the plan that we have which will only impact those people who have $3 million in super, who are more likely to be in my electorate or the electorate of Wentworth than in the electorate of Fowler. I'm sure that the member for Fowler will support the government's initiatives because they are delivering for her electorate. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cost-of-living relief to regional Australians, and what has been the response?

I thank the member for Hunter very much for that question, and I particularly acknowledge the great work that he does as the member for Hunter, as well as his championing for those of us who live in regions right the way across this parliament. As members of regional Australia, we know that our number one priority is delivering cost-of-living relief for every Australian, particularly those who are living in our regions. We do understand that people in our communities are under pressure and we do understand that some of them are doing it really tough. We're working hard to deliver that cost-of-living relief to ensure Australians, particularly in the regions, can earn more and keep more of what they earn.

That is why, from today, every single taxpayer across regional Australia is receiving a tax cut. A truckie in the Pilbara earning $77,000 is getting a tax cut of $1,604, a construction worker in the Hunter earning $110,000 is getting a tax cut of $2,429 and an apprentice in Gippsland earning $53,000 is receiving a tax cut of $1,000—tax cuts that help regional Australians keep more of what they earn. Also from today, 2.6 million Australians on award wages are getting another pay rise backed in by this side of the House.

From today, we are freezing the cost of medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We all know that many people, particularly many older people, rely significantly on medicines, and that is significant cost-of-living relief for them.

From today, our energy bill relief begins: $300 in power bill relief for every regional household and $325 for regional small businesses.

When it comes to infrastructure and regional investment, we've increased funding across the country, and in particular—as I acknowledge the local government members that are here—we are increasing Roads to Recovery funding from $500 million to $1 billion, which means that every single local council across Australia, not just some, will have more money to spend on our local roads, and that reduces pressure on ratepayers—something that those opposite didn't do. Those opposite, frankly, put more pressure on councils through their freezing of financial assistance grants.

We know that there is more to do, which is why we are working every single day to make life better for regional Australia. That is how you deliver cost-of-living relief—not by pushing up power prices with expensive nuclear reactors. The opposition have nothing positive to offer. They are standing continuously in the way of cost-of-living relief for Australians. They want to build nothing, help no-one and take our country nowhere.

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statements in this place last week concerning Senator Payman. When will the Prime Minister expel Senator Payman from the Labor caucus for her disgraceful conduct and her endorsement of the antisemitic chant 'from the river to the sea'?

Government members interjecting—

Order!

The minister for infrastructure. I need to hear the Deputy Leader of the House on a point of order.

Practice at page 553 makes it very clear there's been a longstanding convention that the Prime Minister and ministers cannot be asked questions about the party room.

I'm just going to ask the Manager of Opposition Business to rephrase that question to make sure it's within the standing orders regarding the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Mr Speaker, the question referred directly to the comments the Prime Minister made in this House last week about Senator Payman. As the Leader of the House himself argued on 2 February 2021, it should be open to the opposition to interrogate comments made by the Prime Minister.

As long as the question contains a statement that the Prime Minister has made, it is within—restate the question again, Manager, so I can assist in directing the question, and, as long as it's within the standing orders regarding a statement the Prime Minister has made either through the media or through the House, the question will be in order.

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statements in this place last week concerning Senator Payman. When will the Prime Minister expel Senator Payman from the Labor caucus for her disgraceful conduct and her endorsement of the antisemitic chant 'from the river to the sea'—a very clear, simple question.

I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, page 553 of Practice makes clear that you can't ask—and the whole question has previously been ruled out; that's what Practice says—when the question is itself about party matters. In the question, there's a reference to a statement, where we hear nothing other than the statement being there. But the entire question itself is about membership of a party, and therefore it is squarely ruled out under Practicesquarely.

We're trying to deal with this to get the question within the standing orders. Questions like this have been approved and allowed before. It would assist to make sure it's with precedent to make sure that there is perhaps a reference to the statement. Obviously the Prime Minister made a lot of statements last week. Normally when a question includes, 'I refer to the article where the Prime Minister said,' or on the date or the time, then obviously the Prime Minister is able to be correct in his answer.

So I will give you another shot, but I'm just telling you that in light of what I've said, don't read the same question out again, because it will be ruled out and we will go straight to the next question.

Mr Speaker—

Well, the member for Kennedy on this point of order. We're just going to keep things moving, but—

The Leader of the House is right in what he said: this concerns where you sit in this parliament. That's a lot different to the party membership, and I think the question is proper.

I thank the member for Kennedy for his intervention and thoughts. I'm just going to make sure that you refer to the statement the Prime Minister made. Otherwise, it would not be reasonable for a minister to know every single statement that they said regarding the matter.

My question is to the Prime Minister, who, last week, said in this House:

I met with Senator Payman earlier today. She will not be attending the Labor caucus for the rest of this session.

Since that time, she has again reiterated her support for the antisemitic chant, 'from the river to the sea'. What action will the Prime Minister take consistent with the courage shown by previous Labor prime ministers, or will he continue to be weak?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! No. We're going to deal with this, just as we've been consistent with reflections on members and the dignity of the House, as the manager himself raised in May. But I will hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, you have previously given instructions to the House, at the request of the Manager of Opposition Business, that if reflections like that were made you would be ruling out questions.

Yes. And given that we had a point of order about something the Treasurer had said in his answer—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! To get the question through, Leader of the Opposition, I'm going to ask the manager to withdraw the last part and then the Prime Minister is going to get the call.

I withdraw the last part, Mr Speaker.

I thank the manager. The Prime Minister now has the call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will make a few points. One is that 'from the river to the sea' is a statement that has been used by both supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestine who support a single state.

Where does it say that?

Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting—

It's just a fact; it's in the Likud Charter. And—

The weakest prime minister since Federation!

The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Order! We're going to handle this with decorum and respect.

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right! The Prime Minister is going to be heard in silence, just as the manager was heard in silence.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is the first point I'd make. The second point I'd make in terms of social harmony is that it is important we take the temperature down in this debate, not seek to inflame it. We just had a question earlier about some of the activity that I condemn. I condemn unequivocally the use of the phrase 'from the river to the sea' because it speaks about a single state. The fact is that the government's position is very clear: we support a two-state solution. Last week in the Senate we moved an amendment to a motion, which then would have said this: 'The need for the Senate to recognise the State of Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace.'

Our position is clear: we support the proposal by President Biden and the United States for a peaceful resolution. We support hostages being released. We support civilians being protected. We continue to call for increased humanitarian aid. We continue to argue that every single innocent life matters, whether Israeli or Palestinian. By her own actions, Senator Payman has placed herself outside the privilege that comes with participating in the federal parliamentary Labor Party caucus, and I informed her of that yesterday.

Order! The member for Bowman is now warned.

My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support early childhood educators and to support families in using early childhood education and care? What obstacles have been overcome?

I thank my friend the fantastic member for Fremantle for his question. Today, every Aussie taxpayer gets a tax cut: teachers, nurses, truckies, trainees—and that also includes childcare workers. A childcare worker on, say, $40,000 a year today gets a tax cut of $654. Under the Liberals, if they'd won the last election, that same childcare worker would have got nothing—zero. It's just one example of the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. Under us, every childcare worker who pays tax gets a tax cut. Under the Liberals, some of those childcare workers would have got nothing. It's a similar story when it comes to pay rises. Two and half million Aussies on awards today get a pay rise, including childcare workers. A childcare worker on the award wage will get a pay rise of about $2,000 a year. That's on top of pay rises this time last year and the year before that—pay rises we support, pay rises the Liberal Party oppose, pay rises you might remember the Liberal Party described as reckless.

Today is another reason to celebrate. Today is one year since our cheaper child care laws came into effect. Remember this is the policy that the Liberal Party described as a disgrace. This is the policy that has cut the cost of child care for more than one million Australian families. The Liberal Party described that as a disgrace. If you're a family on a combined income of, say, $120,000 and you've got one child in care three days a week, this has cut the cost of your child care, reduced the cost that you would have to otherwise pay, by about $2,000 because of our cheaper child care laws. That is $2,000 less in the last year than you would otherwise have to pay. The Liberal Party think that's a disgrace. That same family gets a tax cut today of about $2,000. That's real cost-of-living relief.

The biggest childcare provider in the country, Goodstart, recently released a report that shows out-of-pocket costs have gone down and the people that have benefited the most from this are families on low and middle incomes. That's how you deliver real cost-of-living relief, not by jacking up electricity prices with expensive nuclear reactors. Tax cuts, pay rises and cheaper child care—under the Liberal Party, none of these things would have happened. Under the Liberal Party, Australians would have earned less and would pay more tax. Under the Albanese Labor government, Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn.

My question is to the Prime Minister. New analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Office shows that, over the next decade, the federal government will hand over $165 billion in tax handouts to property investors in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. Sixty-seven per cent of the benefit will go to the top 20 per cent of earners, while only 14 per cent will go to the bottom 50 per cent of earners. Can the Prime Minister explain why Labor believes this is a good thing?

Thanks to the honourable member for the question about tax reform and about housing. I will tell you what Labor believes. Labor believes that the best way to deal with the issues in the housing market is to build more homes. That's why, to the great credit of the housing minister, we've allocated an extra $32 billion to building more homes in our communities and in our economy, including $6 billion in the most recent budget.

The member for Deakin and the member for Hume will cease interjecting.

As I said the other day, and as the minister for housing said the other day, if the Greens political party really wanted to solve the issues in the housing market, they'd vote to do that; they would vote for more homes and they would vote for us to build more homes. And that shameful vote last week, which made it very difficult to work out where the Liberal Party begins and ends and where the Greens party begins and ends on housing, really was a demonstration of the Greens political party's real priorities here. As I said last week, and as I'm happy to say again, the Greens will always put a much higher premium on fighting the Labor Party than fighting for more housing for people to live in.

Order! The Treasurer will pause. The member for Griffith on a point of order.

On relevance, Speaker: we're over one minute into the question and the Treasurer has not mentioned negative gearing or the capital gains tax once. They were the entire point of the question. It was a tight question and if he's not capable of answering, he should sit down.

Order! Members on my left. The member for Griffith is entitled to raise a point of order on relevance, just like any other member is entitled. The question at the end was: can he explain why the government believes this is a good thing? So that, by its very nature, isn't a tight question. If it were for a fact, a figure or a policy topic, yes. But, just so all members know, when you add a tagline into the question like this, the question is opened up to a broad intention. But the Treasurer has had time to do some comparing and contrasting, and he can answer how he sees fit regarding if he thinks what you've suggested is a good thing or a bad thing.

Jim-flation!

The only thing more pathetic than the point of order was to hear the shadow Treasurer chirping away without a question over there. He can't get a question, but he's prepared to chirp away when the member for Griffith asks his question.

The reason why building more homes, building more supply, and our $32 billion investment are so important is the Greens political party had an opportunity in the Senate last week to vote for tax changes which would incentivise more homes in our communities—tens of thousands of homes. And the point that I'm making is that if the member for Griffith wants to use the tax system to make the housing sector fairer for young people, homeless people and renters then he would have voted that way in the Senate—or his colleagues would have voted that way in the Senate. Our priority, when it comes to tax reform and housing, is to incentivise more rental properties, because, for as long as there aren't enough homes in our communities, rents will be too high.

The other important point about rents is that we have now provided, in two consecutive budgets, two increases to Commonwealth rent assistance, and rents are still too high and they're growing too fast. In the most recent monthly indicator, the annual rental growth was 7.4 per cent. It would have been 9.3 per cent without our changes to Commonwealth rent assistance. We acknowledge that rents are too high. We acknowledge that more homes need to be built. We're providing that Commonwealth rent assistance increase at the same time that we're trying to build more homes.

Last week in the Senate, the Greens voted for fewer homes, higher rents and more homelessness. If they really cared about housing, they would vote with Labor rather than vote with the conservatives.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australian families with the cost of living, including in early childhood education and care?

I thank the member for Boothby for her question and for her ongoing and relentless advocacy for families and children in Boothby. Even before we took office in 2022, we knew that the cost of early childhood education and care was placing pressure on families and that it was often cited as the reason that women and primary caregivers delayed returning to work, weren't able to take on extra hours of work or weren't able to go back to study, if they so wished. And that's why this Prime Minister went to the election with a policy to lower the cost of early childhood education and care for over one million Australian families.

Today marks one year since our cheaper childcare legislation came into effect—the legislation that we enacted within our first six months in office. The ACCC has found that, due to Labor's reforms in decreasing the cost of early childhood education and care, out-of-pocket expenses for centre-based day care are down by 11 per cent. What does that mean in real terms? The Minister for Education gave a great example of that, one that is worth repeating in this place. For a family with an income of $120,000 and one child in care for three days a week, these reforms mean that they have paid $2,140 less in early learning fees. In addition to that, from today that family will also get a tax cut of around $2,679, and there's a raft of other measures to assist with the cost of living that this government has enacted as of today—energy bill relief, cheaper medicines and more paid parental leave.

If you want to look at how you deliver real cost-of-living relief, look at this side of the House. Look at the things that we're doing: putting downward pressure on the cost of living whilst not putting pressure to increase inflation. That's what we've been doing here, because that's how you deliver real cost-of-living relief. You don't deliver real cost-of-living relief by jacking up power prices with some fantasy of nuclear energy in the never-never.

The reforms that I've spoken about here today on early childhood education and care are a critical first step in achieving our vision of a universal early childhood education and care system—one that's affordable, accessible and inclusive. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. Families in my Durack community are at breaking point. Joshua, age 16, has told ABC News:

Sometimes we're really scraping just to pay the bills and afford food for the family … Mum, actually quite often, misses out on dinner so that there's actually a portion size suitable for the rest of the family the following night.

Prime Minister, why are Australians families paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence?

I thank the member for her question, and I hope that she's told Joshua in her electorate that she voted against energy price relief. One assumes that will have occurred. If Joshua works and is a taxpayer, I hope that she's told him that she actually supports the old stage 3 tax cuts, because that's what the Leader of the Opposition said in February, not that long ago: 'Do we walk away from the principles of stage 3? Absolutely not.' I assume she told Joshua that, if he earns under $45,000, he shouldn't get a tax cut today.

An honourable member interjecting—

Well, I don't know Josh, but the member does, I assume. I was certainly working when I was 16, and so are lots of Australians. That's part of the point. Part of the point here is that a whole lot of part-time workers will now get a tax cut, and one of the reasons why Treasury estimated that our design of the tax cuts would increase workforce participation is just that. It was designed to provide cost-of-living support at the same time as not putting pressure on inflation. I certainly wish Josh well. I know that many families are doing it really tough, but they would be doing it tougher if the inflation rate were the same as the one that we inherited, which was six per cent.

We are delivering increased wages, tax cuts, energy bill relief and a freeze on medicines. We're making a substantial difference with all these practical measures, all of which were opposed by those opposite and voted against by the member for Durack.

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Sport. How is the Albanese Labor government working for older Australians and the people who care for them after a decade of neglect?

I thank the member for her question and for how diligently she represents the people of Canberra, particularly the 78,000 taxpayers in her electorate of Canberra who will be receiving a tax cut today. From day one in government, Labor has been working to deliver our promise to older Australians and the people who care for them: our promise to put nurses back into nursing homes; our promise to make sure all older people have the quality care that they need and that they deserve; our promise to hold providers to account and mandate transparency across the sector; and our promise to deliver a hard-earned pay rise to our dedicated aged-care workers. We are delivering on our promises.

Today, I can share that Australia has achieved another aged-care milestone. Right now, there is a registered nurse on site in aged care 99 per cent of the time across the country in Australia. That's right: 99 per cent of the time across the country a nurse is on duty in an aged-care facility, and older Australians are receiving an additional 3.6 million minutes of care every single day as a result. There has been a reduction in physical restraints, there has been a reduction in the number of falls and there have been reductions in unplanned weight loss, in antipsychotics and polypharmacy, and in pressure injuries.

We are also seeing improvements in our star ratings data, with fewer one- and two-star rated facilities and more four- and five-star rated facilities. Workers are being paid more than they ever have been before, after a 15 per cent increase to award wage minimums. Under the Albanese government, registered nurses are now taking home an additional $196 every single week, or more than $10,000 dollars. Personal care workers are taking home an additional $141 per week, or $7,300 every single year.

I have heard from aged-care workers across the country about the hugely positive changes that these increases are having, both on the quality of care that they are able to deliver to the aged-care residents that they love and on the cost-of-living pressures they are facing in their own household. I've heard from Phonecia, I have heard from Chinatsu, I have heard from Dawn, I have heard from Sue, from Jocelyn, from Donna and Michelle—just a handful of the 250,000 aged-care workers who have benefited from a life-changing increase to their minimum award wages funded by the Albanese government.

The pay rise is just the start of our work to support these workers. Starting today, we are giving them a tax cut, we are freezing their PBS medicine costs, we are delivering $300 power bill relief and we are increasing paid parental leave. That's how you deliver cost-of-living relief, not by pushing up the power prices with nuclear reactors.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Capital Brewing Co. is a local success story but, under the Albanese Labor government, it's suffering from skyrocketing costs. Co-founder and managing director, Laurence Kain, stated: 'Our costs have risen almost out of control. Our electricity bill has gone from $4½ thousand a month to almost $12,000 a month over the last two years.' He said that yesterday. Prime Minister, why are regional small businesses paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence?

ALBANESE (—) (): I thank the member for his question. I assume he is referring to Capital Brewing here in Canberra.

Thank you for that clarification, member for Riverina. They produce a very fine product—I give them that. We know that this is one of the reasons why we are dealing with energy price relief, not just for individuals but for small businesses. Those opposite have opposed the tax cuts for everyone who works at Capital Brewing, have opposed the other support, including, one would assume, lower wages. Many of the people at Capital Brewing will be on low wages or award wages. They are likely to benefit from the increase in wages that we see, and that's a positive—

The member for Grey is interjecting not from his seat.

And that's a positive thing as well. But I hope that the member for Riverina, if he goes down to the Capital Brewing joint just down the road that he tells me he's familiar with, tells them it'll be okay because we'll have a nuclear reactor somewhere in 2040. That'll fix it!

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening the superannuation system so that Australians can meet their cost-of-living needs and retire with dignity?

I thank the fantastic member for Hasluck for her question. I note that because of her great advocacy there are 84,000 taxpayers in her electorate who are going to be better off this week.

There are four things that parliament needs to know about today. The first thing is that wages are up; the second thing is that super is up; the third thing is that taxes are down; and the fourth thing is that the mob over there opposed every single one of those things. This is a good story: wages are up and, because of the strong leadership of the Prime Minister, the economic management of the Treasurer and the fantastic guidance of the industrial relations minister, an Australian worker on minimum wages today will be $33 a week better off in addition to their tax cut. A bigger tax cut, better wages—every single one of them opposed by that mob opposite.

I will focus on the superannuation, because this week superannuation is going to increase by 0.5 per cent. I want members to contemplate the situation of a worker who starts work in a grocery store or supermarket today. That worker need do nothing more than stay in that same job for the remainder of their years until retirement, and they will be $20,000 better off. I'll repeat that: because of the 0.5 per cent increase in their superannuation this week, that worker will be $20,000 a year better off in retirement. And it's because of the strength of our superannuation system.

It's often opposed by those members opposite, but an average Australian is retiring today with $20,000 more in their superannuation—$20,000 more to retire on, making a monumental and meaningful difference to their retirement. The secret sauce behind our superannuation system is the preservation of savings, something that mob over there oppose. Every eight years, a worker's superannuation is doubling. I can see that this is powered by compound interest, not nuclear fission, but it is making a real economic difference to our country and to those workers.

On top of these initiatives is superannuation on paid parental leave. Superannuation on paid parental leave is going to make a monumental difference with $2,400 additional retirement savings for those workers. Every single one of these things is opposed by that mob opposite. (Time expired)

Have you got another question, Angus?

No, I—

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

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

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 5 of 2024, Department of Defence—Canberra Defence precinct tranche 1 Australian Defence Force academy living-in accommodation project and other works.

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

by leave—This report considers six proposals referred to the committee with a combined value of just over $2.1 billion. The first proposal, from the Department of Defence, with a costing of just over $1 billion, is for the demolition and replacement of living-in accommodation for trainee officers at the Australian Defence Force Academy. The second proposal, from Parks Australia, is for essential services for the Mutitjulu community at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. The third proposal is from the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the fit-out of newly leased office premises. The fourth proposal is another fit-out, this time from the Department of Finance, for Commonwealth parliament offices in Perth, Western Australia. And the fifth and sixth proposals are from the Department of Defence for the redevelopments of the Albury Wodonga Military Area and RAAF Base Wagga respectively.

The Canberra Defence precinct tranche 1 Australian Defence Force academy living-in accommodation project will replace existing living-in accommodation facilities and associated infrastructure at the Australian Defence Force Academy, ADFA, in Canberra. The current facilities are approaching their end of life and do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the current or forecast numbers of trainee officers. Defence hopes that the replacement of the current ADFA living-in accommodation facilities with contemporary, safe and suitable accommodation will support defence recruitment and retention.

Additionally, the existing ADFA accommodation has been the subject of scrutiny over past decades, with trainee officers reporting they are experiencing bullying and sexual violence. The new build will address these concerns, as the structures will offer clear lines of sight throughout the facilities and, therefore, passive surveillance from staff and other cadets. Private ensuite bathrooms will replace shared facilities. The committee appreciates the new design may decrease instances of bullying and sexual violence but also urges Defence to focus on the improvement of workplace culture in order to address any poor behaviour by trainee officers.

In this report the committee notes that this project was referred to the committee at an earlier stage than normal. The proposal has not yet received National Capital Authority approval and is subject to change as a result of that approval process. The committee recommends the Department of Defence refer future projects for public works scrutiny at a design level of 50 per cent or greater to enable fair and transparent community consultation. The committee also recommends that Defence work with the National Capital Authority to adjust the design to include six-storey accommodation buildings, rather than four, as well as the installation of electric vehicle charging stations—appropriate ones. The committee believes both modifications will help futureproof the ADFA campus.

On a similar note, the committee is concerned by the forecast significant increase to ongoing operating costs, despite the inclusion of a number of energy efficient and sustainable principles incorporated into the design. The committee recommends that Defence consider further design options which reduce the ongoing operation costs. Finally, the committee recommends that Defence advises the committee of the estimated cost of the required power supply upgrades, since this is agreed with Evoenergy.

The second proposal is the Parks Australia upgrade and replacement of essential services for the Mutitjulu Indigenous community, the recognised traditional owners of Uluru. The project will improve habitability and safety within the community as well as increased capacity for anticipated growth in the population and infrastructure. The total cost of the proposed project is $91.87 million. The committee recognises the necessity of these works to ensure access to basic living conditions for the Mutitjulu committee and is pleased that the updated services infrastructure will support other facilities desired by the community such as a health clinic and a new supermarket.

The third project in this report is the Department of Veterans' Affairs' proposed fit-out of newly leased office premises at 18 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. The project will provide modern office accommodation with enhanced technology that meets Commonwealth density targets, supports organisation agility and flexibility, promotes staff wellbeing and services the veteran community. The total cost of the public works is $29.6 million. The committee supports this public works, noting that the department conducted a thorough consultation process in order to absorb learnings from previous Commonwealth department fit-outs in the same building.

The fourth proposal is the Department of Finance's fit-out of new Commonwealth parliament offices in Perth, Western Australia. These works will provide fit-for-purpose, safe and secure accommodation for ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, as well as accommodating facility and admin support staff who operate and manage the offices. The total cost of the public works is $38.2 million. The committee supports the project and appreciates that the design of the fit-out is flexible and able to accommodate new suites and accompanying workspaces as necessary in the future.

The fifth and sixth proposals are redevelopments by the Department of Defence at the Albury Wodonga Military Area and RAAF Base Wagga. The aim of both projects is to sustain existing personnel throughout and increase the trained permanent workforce of officers and aviators in technical and logistics disciplines and trades. Defence believes site upgrades and the replacement of infrastructure as well as the construction of new living and accommodation, messing and training facilities will deliver this objective. The total costs of the public works are $395.7 million and $590 million respectively.

The committee would like to extend its thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence in support of these inquiries, as well as the personnel who facilitated inspections of the various proposed sites right around the country. For each project the committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed works be carried out.

I commend the report to the House.

by leave—Whilst I won't repeat what the chair has covered, I will say it is a significant investment of over $2 billion that is covered in these projects and over $1 billion for the Australian Defence Force Academy here in Canberra. I'll be generous. We did see as a committee and hear from witnesses, with that generosity, some confusion between the National Capital Authority and Defence around the ability, or lack of, to build accommodation of different levels, as in four storeys to six storeys. That would make a significant difference in an area like ADFA, here in Canberra where the footprint and the land are so valuable. We think that we've addressed those issues between those organisations, and I would hope that, before any further construction is planned or attempted, those organisations will get together and determine what an appropriate height is to get the maximum benefit not only for the participants but of course for the taxpayers, who are paying for these facilities.

In RAAF Base Wagga there were some elements that I saw that were of concern to me, as the deputy chair. One of which was what appears to be an all-electric policy for Defence. Wagga has a gas reticulation system, which is apparently to be either removed or disconnected as part of a significant upgrade at Wagga. To me, that is foolish in the extreme. It is a very, very cold location. We were there a few weeks ago with the chair. Just as a brief aside, the chair and I did find ourselves at the International Hotel Wagga Wagga, which was also the home for the New South Wales state Nationals' conference, which was a bit uncomfortable, I think, for the chair on occasions! However, he did take it in good spirit, and I have to say that I was unaware that that was the case, but that's where we were.

Given the weather conditions and given the thousands of people that will utilise the mess and the renewed accommodation, for example, I think the concept that it can be all electric and avoid gas is one that is actually quite foolish. You should use the resources that are there that work and that are functional, whether they are gas or electric. This is actually about providing services for people. We want them in our armed forces, and we need to provide the best opportunity for them to do what they do, particularly in training.

Mutitjulu was quite an incredible experience, I have to say, and I thank all of those involved, from the secretariat right through to the participants and those individuals who provided evidence. Clearly, it is a community which has been built in an ad hoc manner over a number of decades. When it comes to infrastructure, it does need a significant upgrade, for both sewerage and electrical distribution. Of course, the local workforce has to be provided that work in a way which is not overwhelming. It is very, very remote work and it is quite challenging, particularly given the weather conditions and the availability of pretty much anything. Everything has to be brought in; you can't duck down to the local Bunnings. It is a very, very long way from the source of supply. So, for those who will be doing that work, I think it's being well managed and well handled by Parks Australia and others to ensure there is as much participation from local providers as possible. That, of course, continues to develop local skills and opportunities. I think that's one of the things that we are all in this parliament to help achieve right across the country.

With that, I thank all participants. I thank Defence. It's a big country, and it's a very significant spend. Of course we support those projects going forward in what is a very important period of time for our nation.

Defence is a primary duty of government. In September 2022, as one of our first actions, the Albanese Labor government asked the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into how Australia makes decisions to send service personnel into international armed conflict. Of course, we do have oversight already through parliamentary debate and Senate estimates processes plus the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee. However, that committee, chaired by my colleague the member for Bruce, judged that these processes are not sufficient. The committee saw a need for the parliament to be able to examine Defence projects and strategy in detail within a classified setting.

Recommendation 6 of the seven recommendations of the committee's report was for the establishment of a new, dedicated statutory committee focused on Defence, the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, which is of course the subject of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. The coalition members of that committee supported the recommendation. Indeed, this isn't the first time the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee has made this very recommendation. In 2018, when the committee was chaired by Liberal Senator Jim Molan, the same recommendation was made. Senator Molan called it a 'sensible and critically important' reform and recommended that strategy should be its focus. I agree.

Fortunately, the new committee will indeed have a strategy on which to have its focus, because an overarching Defence strategic review was commissioned by the Albanese Labor government as one of its first actions when coming to power. The review by his Excellency, Professor the Hon. Stephen Smith and former Chief of the Australian Defence Force Sir Angus Houston was released in April 2023. The 2024 National Defence Strategy, based on the review, directs that the Australian Defence Force must adapt to meet contemporary threats—to shift from a balanced force to a focused force and to be more capable, more lethal and more integrated. The strategy is one of denial that envisages an ADF fulfilling five tasks: defence of Australia and our immediate region, deterrence through denial, protection of our trade connections, investment in our regional relationships and contribution to a rules based order. But to quote Jim Molan again:

Defence is not the province of the military alone—it is a whole of nation obligation led by the government.

… …    …

With effective oversight, the parliament and the nation would not have to rely on leaked, potentially sensitive, details to the media. Points of contention could be debated while maintaining the appropriate level of secrecy about sensitive programs. And, perhaps most importantly, such a parliamentary committee could assist in bringing the nation to a realisation of the relative importance of defence and security, compared with other demands on the nation's purse and attention.

I turn to the provisions of this bill and the powers of the proposed Joint Standing Committee on Defence. Clause 110ABB sets out the functions of the committee. These express functions go further than those held by the current Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Subclause (e) describes as a function 'to examine and be appraised of war or warlike operations, including ongoing conflicts'. Decisions to go to war will not be made by the parliament or by the committee. The power to commit our ADF to conflict will remain within the power of the government of the day. This is a constitutional power.

Recent examples of commitments of troops other than for peacekeeping operations are for Afghanistan in 2001 and the Second Gulf War in 2003. This committee provides a way for the parliament to afford appropriate scrutiny of the decisions taken by the government in relation to war and warlike operations. Governments may, moreover, decide to engage the committee prior to a commitment. Sometimes a commitment of troops is fairly unanimous in the parliament and in the community. But there have been other occasions when the commitment of troops has been a contested space. The commitment of forces by Prime Minister Howard in 2003 to Iraq is an example of a contested decision. In retrospect, much about that decision can be faulted, and it is hard to draw a line between that war and Australia's national interest. Labor voted against a motion in the House which supported the commitment of troops. Since that time, it has been broadly recognised that greater parliamentary scrutiny of Australia's military actions and preparedness is warranted from the point of view of allowing for better accountability in a parliamentary democracy and also because greater scrutiny can be expected to create an environment where better decisions are made, knowing that greater scrutiny will be applied.

The bill provides the proposed committee with a host of other important functions. Examining war under subclause (e) will be a rare action by the committee. Many members will come and go from the committee without ever having to inquire on that topic. Most of the functions of the defence committee relate to defence preparedness. The committee will review Defence agencies and their budgets, consider strategy documents and scrutinise capability development and acquisitions. On the subject of acquisitions, the Deputy Prime Minister and defence minister stated yesterday in an interview that Defence contracting is the space within government where you have the greatest exposure to the private sector. He was speaking with reference to the Thales matter that has been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, where there were allegations of kickbacks for a contract. Defence contracts are always serious decisions and often involve huge amounts of money. They are the biggest single spends we see. The defence committee, under subclauses (a) and (c) of the bill, will be charged with reviewing expenditure and scrutinising acquisitions. This function will add to the necessary, robust processes that the Deputy Prime Minister and defence minister stated is essential to provide public confidence.

Other committees cannot fully fulfil this function. This month, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit reported on the Defence major projects from 2021 through to 2023, including an examination of the Hunter-class frigate project. The recommendations make it clear that greater scrutiny and timely reporting are needed, but the public accounts and audit committee manage their work without the special access to classified information that the defence committee will have. Having held a security clearance in a past role, I can attest that anything classified is worth knowing. Being able to scrutinise whether our spending on defence will produce a national capability that can deter conflict and, when it's deployed, is able to win requires ongoing and consistent consideration and oversight.

Around ANZAC Day this year, I published an article on the Battle of Rabaul in 1942, which I've referred to in this place. I was driven to write on that battle for a number of reasons: the fact that it was a pivotal but largely forgotten defeat that set the stage for the attack on Darwin; my own interest, having served in the Army Reserve; my father's and grandfather's service; and also the fact that my husband grew up there. Over all of this, I felt that the Battle of Rabaul serves to remind us now, at this point in time and in this global environment, of the need for forward posture. Our interests extend far beyond our borders and mingle with the interests of our neighbours. Preparedness for conflict in today's world is built on cooperation and with a care that extends well north of Australia. The defence committee will play a role in ensuring that this is not forgotten or minimised and is reflected in our long-term decision-making.

The bill provides the committee with a number of other functions in relation to both preparedness and personnel. Subclause (d) covers matters relating to Defence personnel and veterans. Our preparedness always depends on our people, and the defence committee can be another way in which we ensure that each and every enlisted person has the best support in place to enable them to fulfil their duty and love their career. I'm particularly pleased to see that Veterans' Affairs is included, as the interests of our personnel after their service is complete needs to be an integral part of how we think about the ADF as a whole. The committee will also, under subclause (g), examine the reports of any relevant royal commission.

Australia has a really proud history of joint exercises with our neighbours and partners. Likewise, we are proud that Australia has been represented in every UN peacekeeping operation since the UN itself was established, and the committee could review these. Members may be surprised to learn that the ADF has over 20 operations and engagements currently deployed around the world. Examples include Operation Aslan, the Australia Defence Force contribution of personnel to the UN mission in South Sudan. Another is Operation Paladin, the ADF's support to the UN Truce Supervision Organisation, whose activities are spread across Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic. Also Operation Southern Discovery, which is the ADF's contribution to the Australian Antarctic Program. These operations and activities are essential to the furtherance of peace around the world and part of the way in which we, as a country, take part as good global citizens. They are also part of the way in which we train and prepare our ADF. The defence committee would have a role in reviewing the efficacy of these contributions.

This bill should be passed. The coalition members of the committee supported the recommendation to create this new committee, so it was disappointing to hear of their late opposition. I've read the member for Canning's odd justification for their position. The coalition want to amend the legislation to target and obviate a particular political party and particular independents. How does the member for Kennedy feel about this amendment? The member for Calare? The member for Monash? There is some collective memory in the walls of this place that the coalition would like to ban the Communist Party as well. Maybe they should add that to their amendment. The member for Canning should not come into this place with an amendment that he knows is undemocratic and merely political. The safeguards around the operation of this committee are such that it will operate within an environment congruent with that of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The member for Canning knows this. He knows that committee well enough; he's on it, and he's chaired it. He knows full well that the provisions of section 28 of the Intelligence Services Act are being repeated here for this bill, and he needs to treat this bill with the seriousness it requires and support it.

The coalition spokesperson on defence, the member for Canning, actually understands the importance of the legislation because he has spoken in favour of it many times. In 2020, the member for Canning said, 'parliamentary scrutiny of Defence is broken and needs fixing' and, further, 'There is no independent Joint Defence Committee where tough questions can be asked'. Of course, the member was a member of a governing party then, which for nine years could have created this committee. The opposition talk a big game on defence matters, but are apparently a little lukewarm when it comes to actually improving our defence forces and the decisions with better scrutiny.

In any event, placing the word 'opposition' in legislation, even if it could be defined, is fraught. We know who the opposition parties are today, but we don't know the future. Perhaps after the election next year there will be a split of the Liberal Party, where we'll have a conservative party and a real liberal party will emerge. You are smiling at that, Mr Wolahan. You like that! One of those perhaps won't even support nuclear power. Perhaps the Nationals and the Liberals won't be in coalition anymore either. Prescribing which parties or mix of parliamentary members should be represented is undemocratic. The longstanding composition of the Intelligence and Security Committee has stood the test of time, and it works. The coalition knows this. The same composition is proposed in this bill for the defence committee. Dr Dominique Dalla-Pozza of ANU stated in 2020, in relation to the composure of the Intelligence and Security Committee, that in its formal terms, the IS Act sets up a committee that has the potential to be quite independent of government control. Dr Dalla-Pozza recognised that the way membership was constituted meant that the minor parties were not represented but also recognised the view that such membership meant that the recommendations of the committee to the executive were more likely, in this case, to be bipartisan, and more likely to have the support of the executive.

I began my speech with the Defence Strategic Review and the fact that we now need to adapt to meet contemporary threats, which involves shifting from a balanced force to a focused force—more capable, more lethal and more integrated. Integration is vital and it also betrays the fact that conflict is in a more complex space than it has ever been. Greater scrutiny needs to be part of ensuring that we are ready for the world as it is, and also for how it is changing. This committee, which many members have sought to create for some time, is now needed more than ever. The bill should be passed.

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. I have a memory that's as clear as day from when I was in Tarin Kowt, in Afghanistan. I stood in front of a clerk and saw on the screen a debate in this place about the war in Afghanistan. It was quite a surreal moment, because I remember seeing members that I recognised speaking about it. This isn't a criticism of any member—many spoke from the heart—but it felt like there was a disconnect between what we were seeing on the ground there in Afghanistan and some of the speeches given here. The speeches felt like they were more appropriate for the time just after September 11 but hadn't moved with what had happened on the ground.

I've thought about something which has been said to me again and again. People say, 'You don't want to hear my opinion on defence or national security; I haven't served.' I totally reject that, because there is no requirement, in passing effective judgement on the deployment of men and women in uniform, to have done it yourself. There is no requirement. All you need to bring are your ears, your head and your heart, and many members in this place and in the Senate do that. Indeed, that is key to civilian control of the military.

I'm old enough to have seen the movie Starship Troopers, and maybe even old enough to have read the book! In that book, there was a requirement for the citizenship to have served. That isn't what we have here; there is no ticket to be a citizen in this country—anyone can. And we can say that while fully honouring and acknowledging those who have served. But it is the good judgement and good character of the people in this place and in the Senate that is required. I have seen that on many occasions.

This committee is a key aspect of civilian control of the military. Indeed, again and again, we have often seen that the best decisions in the national interest have been made by civilian members who have then served in this place and in the other place, and who have the best interests of the nation at heart. That's why this is such an important committee. It's an important committee because we have a lot of work to do to be where we need to be to keep our nation safe.

In many respects, and as difficult as it was, the announcement of the AUKUS agreement was the easy part. The delivery of AUKUS will be extremely hard. There will be many ups and downs and there will be many challenges. Governments will change across the three partners, some sooner than others. In fact, there are elections on this year for two, maybe three, and AUKUS needs to survive through that. This committee needs to be one that has members and senators who will serve over many terms and see that project, amongst many others, through to its completion. There is no other way for AUKUS to work without that. There is no other way.

In many projects in Defence we have seen, for want of a better word, middle management 'kill' things. You don't have to have served in defence to know how middle management can kill a project through delay, confusion and extra red tape, or just by things being put on the backburner. For AUKUS to be delivered, it needs a bipartisan commitment from this place and from the Senate to keep relevant ministers, no matter which political party they are in, and the relevant military personnel—whether they're in the civilian chain of command, in the department, or they're in the uniformed chain of command—with their feet to the fire to deliver it. That's going to be a multidecade endeavour. Indeed, a committee like this will see members and senators form relationships with their peers in the United States and the United Kingdom. They will have frank and honest discussions about the challenges in the various democracies and how we can do our best to overcome them. That takes a committee that is full of members and senators who put their priorities in this order: the national interest, and then some other interests, and down the list their party interest. Your party interest should not walk into that room at all. It shouldn't be a part of that room. As the Prime Minister quite rightly noted today, when you open up the doors in this building, from his office you can see through the Members Hall and out the entrance, to our War Memorial, with its 103,000 names of Australians who have died while serving their country. It would be doing them a disservice and a dishonour to ever put party interest—or, certainly, self-interest—above the national interest. It must never happen.

It does concern me to look at the particular announcements of a particular party, namely the Greens political party. It's important to acknowledge them. The Greens' plan, on their platform, states that they will cancel Defence contracts and cut Defence spending at a time when we need the exact opposite to happen. Their platform notes that they will:

Renegotiate the US alliance to secure a new relationship focused on making us a better global citizen

Now, that is a fine statement to make but it doesn't reflect the reality of the world that we actually live in. The platform says they will:

Reduce military spending to 1.5 % of GDP …

This is a grossly inadequate number. Finally, it says that they will:

Close all military bases that foreign militaries have set up in this country

That would include facilities like Pine Gap and the Marine Rotational Force in Darwin, amongst many others.

Great exception has been taken to that criticism by the coalition. It has been described as undemocratic—somehow, noting the Greens' position is not acknowledging the democratic reality of this place. Indeed, if the Greens were to take many more Labor seats, it might be something we have to revisit, but, in all of the parliaments to date, and in the current parliament that we have, that is not the state of our democracy, and it is not the composition that the Australian people have sent to this place.

I have been surprised, in a good way, in my interactions with members on both sides in that, on the issue of national security and defence, there are goodwill and good intentions. I can quite honestly say there are patriots across both sides, as you would expect and as you would hope for this place. This is the parliament that we are in, and this is the composition that the people have sent here. So the coalition is well within its rights to note that this particular bill, which allows for the Greens to be on the committee, would undermine the committee's whole purpose. It would undermine its purpose because the committee requires those who are on it to be exposed to not just confidential briefings but also secret and top-secret briefings. For those who have served, whether in an intelligence agency or in uniform, there are two limbs to national security documents. One is whether you have a classification, and for that committee you would presume that members and senators on the committee had been granted one, in the same way as the secretariat would require one. But the second part is the need to know. Do you need to know? For the Greens political party to make pronouncements on defence, they don't need to know the ins and outs of the most important agreement, the AUKUS agreement. That agreement will face enough hurdles and enough challenges before we consider that those who mix their politics with a form of student activism will be seeking to use the committee to undermine the national interest. To do it in that way would risk making the committee totally ineffective, because we know how the department and those in uniform would react. They would pull back from being full and frank in their disclosures to the committee, which would mean that it wouldn't be able to do the work that it needs to do. It is not a given that AUKUS will be delivered without hard work, goodwill and enormous pressure and dedication from multiple generations of parliamentarians in this place and in the Senate, and this committee is a key requirement for that to happen.

We welcome the committee. I particularly want to thank those who have recommended this in previous parliaments, including the late Senator Jim Molan. He advocated for this from a very early stage, including not just for the delivery of a great national project like AUKUS but also for the consideration of where and how this nation will deploy its men and women in harm's way.

I think back to that moment in Tarin Kowt where I stopped for a moment, looked up at the TV—at this place—and pondered about the debate that was happening so far away on the other side of the earth about the place that we were standing in. I would like to think that future men and women in uniform will one day stop to read a digital newspaper or look online to hear that a committee has had their interests at heart, the national interest at heart, and that, in particular, the parties who have had a tradition of being in government, the Labor Party and the coalition, have put their best efforts to put the national interest first, and, with that amendment, this bill is to be welcomed.

Before I start I would like to take a moment just to acknowledge my friend, on the other side, the member for Menzies. I acknowledge his service and thank him for it as well. I rise to speak in support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. This bill represents a step forward in our commitment to ensuring transparency, accountability and robust oversight within our national defence framework, and a step towards bringing about recommendations made by a number of inquiries—namely, as part of the inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making, which was tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade last year.

The proposal for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is not by any means new. Its creation was also made as a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in its report titled Contestability and consensus during the 45th Parliament in 2018. Though diverse in their reasonings, these reports held some constants as to the reasoning behind recommending such a committee to be established. The rapidly changing nature of our strategic environment has certainly necessitated a thorough parliamentary review to ensure our defence policies align with Australia's national interests.

The Defence strategic review of 2023 underscored the rapidly evolving security environment, characterised by intense competition among major powers and the increasing likelihood of conflict impacting our national interest. As stated in the review, intense China-US competition is the defining feature of our region and our time, and Australia now faces the prospect of major conflict directly threatening its national interest. Effective national defence is not solely the remit of the Defence department or the Australian Defence Force. It requires the involvement and oversight of all branches of government, including the parliament, to ensure our strategies and expenditures are carefully considered and aligned with the national interest.

This bill seeks to establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, a statutory committee designed to provide rigorous oversight and scrutiny of defence related decisions. This committee will play a role in enhancing public trust in our defence policies by ensuring they are transparent, accountable and subject to comprehensive parliamentary review. The PJCD will be tasked with reviewing high-level policy documents, capability development programs, acquisition and sustainment initiatives, defence personnel and Veterans' Affairs and other matters referred by the minister or parliament. This purview extends to monitoring the government's response to the findings of any royal commission that is germane to the defence of Australia—the Department of Defence, the ADF or another Australian defence agency.

One of the key features of the PJCD is its authority to access classified information, akin to the powers held by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is similarly provided for within provisions of the Intelligence Services Act. This will ensure that committee members are well informed and capable of decisions based on comprehensive and accurate information. The PJCD will also have the power to conduct hearings and inquiries, providing a platform for stakeholders to present their views and for the committee to gather comprehensive insights into defence matters. The establishment of the PJCD addresses current gaps in parliamentary oversight by providing a dedicated forum for examining defence issues. As the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has noted, robust parliamentary oversight is essential for ensuring that our defence policies are not only effective but also align with the national interest.

That efficacy starts by addressing expenditure, both at the micro and macro levels. Given the size of Australia's defence expenditure, establishing a robust oversight mechanism through the PJCD will promote fiscal responsibility within our defence framework. By scrutinising defence expenditure and procurements—and thus ensuring that they are not only justified but remain aligned with our strategic priorities—the PJCD will help optimise our defence investments. This fiscal oversight is particularly important in the context of the significant increases in defence funding outlined in the 2024 National Defence Strategy. Moreover, the PJCD will play a crucial role in safeguarding the human rights of defence personnel and civilians affected by defence policies. By examining matters relating to defence personnel and veterans, the PJCD, with increased powers, will ensure that our defence strategies uphold the values and principles our defence establishment is tasked with protecting. This aspect of the committee's work is particularly important in light of recent inquiries into international armed conflict decision-making. These highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability in this area.

The strategic context of this bill is defined by the rapidly changing nature of our security environment. Australia now faces the prospect of playing a part in the maintenance of the global rules based order, particularly within the bounds of our neighbouring Indo-Pacific region. In response to these challenges, the 2024 National Defence Strategy outlined a series of strategic adjustments and investments designed to enhance our defence capabilities. The establishment of the PJCD is a critical component of our response to these strategic challenges. By providing a dedicated forum for examining defence issues, the PJCD will ensure that our defence policies are informed by comprehensive analysis and debate. This will enhance the effectiveness of our National Defence Strategy and those proposed and released by government, moving forward, ensuring that we are better prepared to meet the challenges of the future.

In addition to its oversight responsibilities, the PJCD will also facilitate greater engagement between the Department of Defence and parliament. This engagement is essential for fostering a deeper understanding of defence issues among parliamentarians and for ensuring that defence policies reflect the perspectives and priorities of the broader Australian community. By providing a platform for dialogue and collaboration, the PJCD will help to bridge the gap between the defence department and parliament, promoting a more cohesive and coordinated approach to national defence. This shift promotes a culture of accountability within the defence department, encouraging better decision-making and more efficient use of resources. The PJCD's role in facilitating greater engagement between the defence department, other agencies and the parliament is essential for fostering a deeper understanding of defence's issues among parliamentarians.

The committee's mandate will extend to reviewing the Defence white paper, the Defence strategic update and other pivotal strategic documents that guide our national defence posture. By thoroughly examining these documents, the PJCD will ensure that our defence strategies are not only well founded but also adaptable to the rapidly changing global security environment. This level of scrutiny is essential for maintaining a defence posture that is both resilient and responsive.

Furthermore, the PJCD's role in overseeing capability development programs is particularly crucial. The acquisition of advanced defence capabilities is a complex and often contentious process, involving significant financial investments and strategic considerations from the initial decision to commence a procurement process throughout the delivery and beyond. Across those stages, the PJCD will provide a critical oversight function, ensuring that these investments are made judiciously and that the capabilities acquired align with our long-term strategic objectives. This oversight will help prevent the cost overruns, delays and other issues that have historically plagued defence procurement processes.

The committee's mandate also extends to the oversight of acquisition and sustainment initiatives. Ensuring that our defence assets are not only acquired efficiently but also maintained and sustained effectively is vital for our national security. The PJCD will scrutinise these initiatives, providing a layer of accountability that will help ensure that our Defence Force is always ready and capable of responding to threats. This oversight is particularly important in the context of the significant investments outlined in the 2024 National defence strategy, which include advanced technologies and critical infrastructure.

Defence personnel and Veterans' Affairs are another critical area under the PJCD's purview and the broader remit of work and investigatory oversight activities that the committee can be empowered to undertake both at its discretion and at the direction of the minister from time to time. Our ADF personnel are the backbone of our national security. Their welfare and wellbeing must be a top priority and must remain a priority once they have concluded their service to our nation.

The PJCD will play a key role in examining policies and programs related to defence personnel management, training and support services. This includes ensuring that our veterans receive the care and support they need after their service. By providing robust oversight in this area, the PJCD will help ensure that our defence personnel and veterans are treated with the respect and dignity that should always be afforded to them.

The operational procedures and powers of the PJCD are designed to ensure that it can carry out its mandate effectively. The ability to summon witnesses, request documents and hold in camera sessions will provide the committee with the tools it needs to conduct thorough and comprehensive reviews. The support of the secretariat and staff with the necessary security clearances to handle classified information will ensure that the committee can access all relevant information while maintaining the integrity of our national security.

The operational procedures and powers of the PJCD include the ability to summon witnesses, request documents and hold in camera sessions. The PJCD will also enhance transparency of Defence operations by providing regular reports to the parliament and the public. These reports will detail the committee's findings and recommendations, providing a clear and comprehensive overview of Defence activities and policies. This transparency is essential for maintaining public trust in our defence policies and ensuring that the Australian people are informed about the decisions that impact their security and wellbeing.

In addition to its oversight and transparency functions, the PJCD will also play a key role in promoting a culture of accountability within the defence department by scrutinising decisions and holding officials accountable for their actions. The committee will help foster a culture of responsibility and integrity within the department. This will encourage better decision-making and more ethical behaviour, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness and credibility of our defence policies.

The establishment of the PJCD is also an important step in strengthening our democratic institutions. By involving parliament more directly in defence oversight, we are ensuring that our defence policies are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny as other areas of government policy. This will help ensure that our defence strategies are not only effective but also democratic and accountable to the Australian people. This integrated approach will enhance the coherence and effectiveness of our national policies and help ensure that our defence strategies contribute to the overall wellbeing and prosperity of Australia.

Effective parliamentary oversight ensures that defence policies are not only strategically sound but also transparent and accountable to the Australian people. It promotes a culture of accountability within the defence department, encouraging better decision-making and more efficient use of resources. It aligns with the international best practices and reflects a commitment to upholding the highest standards of transparency and accountability in our defence policies. By providing a dedicated forum for examining defence issues, the PJCD will ensure that our defence strategies are robust, effective and aligned with our national interest.

The PJCD will ensure that our defence policies are subject to continuous review and improvement. In a rapidly changing strategic environment, it is essential that our defence strategies remain flexible and responsive to new challenges and opportunities. The PJCD will play a crucial role in this process by regularly reviewing defence policies and recommending adjustments as needed. This continuous oversight will help ensure that our defence strategies remain relevant and effective in the face of evolving threats and challenges. Transparency in defence operations is crucial for maintaining public trust. The PJCD will enhance this transparency by providing regular reports to parliament and the public, detailing its findings and recommendations. This transparency will ensure the Australian people are informed about the decisions that impact their security and wellbeing, fostering greater trust in our defence policies, frameworks and apparatus.

The PJCD is also a significant step in strengthening our democratic institutions. By involving parliament more directly in defence oversight, we are ensuring that our defence policies are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny as other areas of government policy. This will help ensure that our defence strategies are effective, democratic and accountable to the Australian people. By conducting hearings and inquiries, the committee will offer a platform for a wide range of stakeholders, including defence experts, industry representatives and community groups, to present their views and contribute to the development of defence policy. This approach will ensure that our defence policies are informed by diverse perspectives and are responsive to the needs and concerns of the Australian community.

Enhancing our national defence relations is another crucial function of the PJCD. By scrutinising international defence agreements and partnerships, the committee will help ensure that these arrangements are in Australia's best interests and aligned with our strategic objectives. This will enhance our international standing and ensure that our defence policies contribute to regional and global security. Aligning our defence policies with broader national objectives is essential for coherent governance.

The PJCD will examine the links between defence policy and other areas of government policy, such as economic policy, social policy and foreign policy. This integrated approach will enhance the coherence and effectiveness of all of our national policies. By establishing the PJCD, we are ensuring that our defence policies are subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny.

I commend this bill to the House.

I get appalled often in this place, but I listened to the previous member of parliament passing judgement upon men that go out there and put their lives on the line. And they're going to be subject to review by the likes of you. I bet you've never fired a rifle in your life!

Member for Kennedy! Member for Spence, I'm taking this up right now. Member for Kennedy, you must direct your comments through me as the chair to avoid personal insult and injury. And I can hear you perfectly well, so you do not have to yell at me.

Most people talking on this bill have not actually fired a rifle, let alone fired a rifle in anger. They've never actually fired a rifle, and yet they're going to stand in judgement—

Okay, Member for Kennedy. I've now got a point of order, I believe, from the member for Menzies.

I ask that the member of Kennedy withdraw and apologise. The member for Spence has served in uniform and has fired a rifle.

Member for Kennedy, you have caused offence—

He makes a point that a member of parliament has fired a rifle.

It would assist—

Well, good on you, mate! There's one bloke in here that's fired—

Member for Kennedy!

I'm sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Member for Kennedy, it really would assist the House if you would withdraw that comment from earlier on and move on with the substance of what you would like to talk about.

What comment, Madam Deputy Speaker?

I believe offence has been taken by the member for Spence—

You are without honour, Bob.

I've just taken a point of order from the member for Menzies, who was also offended by your comment directed towards the member for Spence. It would help the House if you would withdraw that.

I apologise for whatever it is, because I want to move on. Please can I move on?

Please proceed.

Alright, there might be a person who has fired a rifle. But, when we were at war with Indonesia, I and probably half a million other Australians knew my country was at war and that we had to fight. The number of people in here that would have had that before them I think would be minimal if not negligible. And yet you're going to stand in judgement upon those people that volunteered to put their lives at risk to defend this country. What right have you got to judge those people?

I take the interjections from the ALP.

What the hell are you talking about?

I am getting continuous interjections when I'm talking about men sacrificing their lies to defend their country. And he keeps interjecting. I don't know what you're objecting to, my friend—

You're just talking crap.

but you better watch out, because I'll send that to your local papers.

Member for Kennedy, please direct your comments through me. You've managed to upset a number of people now, and I would like to avoid that. So talk to me and forget them.

It is my privilege to offend people in this place. That is my right as a member of parliament.

Not if it offends standing orders.

Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you've had more of my time than I have, so could you please give me a go.

Member for Kennedy—

There you go again!

If you could proceed, that would be helpful.

I'm just taking down how many times you've interrupted me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Army is run by a person who I found to be a little bit effeminate. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, but it just seemed to me to be fairly unusual to have a person like that at the top of the Army. He paid himself and his wife $1.2 million a year. All of those things are forgivable. But, when you spend $40,000 million dollars of taxpayers' money to buy 15 machine guns—my platoon of 32 men had 15 machine guns. We did not cost the taxpayers $40,000 million. We spent it on patrol boats and drones. Each patrol boat has a machine gun. So he put out $40,000 million to buy 15 machine guns.

Ukraine has demonstrated that we clearly need artillery pieces and artillery shells. Everyone on earth believes that you need a missile fortress; we would need maybe 200,000 missiles. I doubt whether we've got 200 missiles. Yet this place, which has made those decisions, has the hide to pass judgement.

When the head of the armed forces pulled Roberts-Smith over the coals and took his medals off him and took them off the SAS as well, Jacqui Lambie immediately went before the cameras. As far as I know, she, one member of the ALP and I are the only three who have ever worn a uniform. She was there, and I tripped going down the stairs. I thought I'd broken my leg trying to get down to support her and Heston Russell in defending the people that were defending their country.

I pray that we do not get in a conflict. People say, 'It's very patriotic, and my dad went to war.' Well, my dad went to war too, but it isn't patriotism. When we were at war with Indonesia, I joined up because, when your country is at war, you join up. I don't mean to denigrate people that make the decision; I'm one of them. But it's not about that. When your country is at war, you join up. But, when you join up, you have to take the orders, and you're placed in the most dreadful situations.

To try to bring home to you what war is about, Deputy Speaker, we took bayonet drill. The idea was that you let out a bloodcurdling scream, charged at a dummy, shoved your bayonet right in to the hilt into the dummy and pulled it out again. Then you were on guard, and you would charge at the second dummy. It was 'in, out, on guard'. Obviously, we were not going to do bayonet charges in the year of our Lord 1962—or 1964 or whatever it was. That wasn't going to happen. So why were we doing that? Because we were training a person to kill without thinking. If he starts thinking in warfare, then the whole platoon could be dead. You can criticise us for that, and you probably will. You'll probably throw us in jail for that. But we had to defend our country, and that was the way that it was done. And this was done 20 years after the Second World War, but it gives you some idea of what it was like.

One of my relatives—and Heaven only knows I think 20 or 30 of my relatives fought in the Second World War—fought at Milne Bay. I said, 'So what was it like?' 'We're going over there, and it's going to be pretty bad. We're up against a country 20 times our size.' They have been wonderful neighbours to us, Indonesia. I wish I could say the same thing about us being wonderful neighbours to them. But there was an aberration, and we were on our way to fight in Indonesia, a country with a population 20 or 30 times the size of Australia's and backed up by the communists at that stage.

This was happening in the context of communism. Mao Zedong, it's quite clear now, was responsible for the death of 48 million people. When I was at university, 5,000 marched against us being in Vietnam. But the jury is in now on Vietnam. The communists never took another country after Vietnam; the cost was too great. So it was the turning point at which communism was turned back. Just how bad was communism? Mao Zedong, it's quite clear now, was responsible for the death of 48 million people. Stalin was responsible for the death of 28 million people. That's 76 million people, if you add it up. In all of human history, not even Tamerlane or Genghis Khan would be up there with these two blokes.

But we had to fight to stop them, and Vietnam was a tough call because overlaid on the issues there were national independence and the French. But you don't know whether the cause is right or wrong. Up till about 10 years ago I wouldn't have said that I knew whether the cause was right or wrong. Your country says, 'We're at war,' and you go off to war. Now, when you get there, there are people trying to kill you and kill your friends, and, if they succeed in doing that, then we have the Japanese and the Rape of Nanking. Do you want that to happen to your people?

Do you want what the Germans did to the Russians, and then what the Russians did to the Germans in Berlin? You're passing judgement on people that have watched their families be wiped out. You can say the Russians were dreadful for what they did in Berlin. Yes, well, half of them had their families wiped out. There would hardly have been a single soldier that didn't have a relative murdered by the Germans. So it was payback time. You're going to pass judgement on these people, are you? You're going to pass judgement on them?

All I can say to you is Jacqui Lambie did wear a uniform as a full-time soldier. Heston Russell was a full-time soldier. I was not a full-time soldier, but we were on a 24-hour call-up to fight. The country was on a war footing. So I near enough was a full-time soldier. So that's three people that really had to face up to war as soldiers in this place. We united in absolute rage at the treatment of Ben Roberts-Smith and others, and the standing down of the whole SAS battalion. Now, the head of the Army said, 'You're guilty until innocent.' He immediately punished all these people, without finding out whether they were innocent or guilty. They were just hung, drawn and quartered by him in the public arena, and there's me nearly breaking my leg trying to get down to back up Jacqui Lambie and Heston Russell.

At Milne Bay—I asked this relative, who was a sergeant who was at Milne Bay. He said, 'So you want to know about the butchers of Milne Bay?' He said, 'Our commander said, "Out there's the sharks, in there's the cannibals and there's the airstrip. We take the airstrip or we die." When we came to find the first evidence of battle, the Japanese had used our soldiers, Australians, as bayonet practice. They'd been tied to trees, tortured and then killed. Our blokes went crazy.' He said, 'We cut the heads off the Japanese in the first line of trenches we took and then threw the heads into the next line of trenches. That was really successful because they jumped out of the trenches and we could kill them easily.' Obviously, the story is wildly exaggerated, but it'll give you some idea of the savagery of warfare.

Don't you people, sitting here in your nice, air-conditioned, comfortable, protected place, with a big fence around you and security guards everywhere, pass judgement on people that have put their lives on the line for this country. Don't you pass judgement on them.

Wellington, the hero of Waterloo, voted for the independence of Ireland. He was a highly conservative flag-waving colonialist, and everyone was quite staggered that he voted for the independence of Ireland. But he had fought with the guerrillas in the Spanish campaign, and he said, 'I will never, ever see that happen to any English person ever again,' because he could see what was going to happen in Ireland. There would be a guerrilla warfare.

So here is one of the great warriors of human history. He defeated Napoleon, the greatest commander in human history. He won 32 major battles. And Wellington beat him. But here he is voting for the independence of Ireland rather than facing up to another war. So, if you're out there and you've seen these things happen, then you have the right to pass judgement. If you haven't, quite frankly, I don't believe you have a shred of right to pass judgement upon these people. Their own soldiers can pass judgement upon them, but you people in this place and the broader legal fraternity—I didn't see too many of them going off to war—don't.

I want to pay tribute to the men that have defended this country. I was in the 49th Battalion when we were at war with Indonesia. I was on 24-hour call-up to go over there. We had to list two of our next of kin, and we all know why that was. I was the unit historian. I went and saw the colonel. I said: 'Colonel, in the Second World War, it was pretty negative. We fell back, we failed to hold ground, we wilted under fire—it was all pretty negative.' He said, 'What do you want to do, Katter?' There were about a thousand men in a battalion. As I said, I was the unit historian. I said, 'Well, we might have been a fall-back battalion, but then again we might not.' This was only 19 years after the Second World War had ended. 'I'm going to go down to the local RSL and just ask. Maybe we were a fall-back, but maybe we weren't.' So I went down there and I yelled out, 'Does anyone here know anything about the 49th Battalion?' They were one of the three battalions that were sent to New Guinea to stop the invasion of Australia. They were one of the three battalions that were sent up to stop the Japanese invasion. We had to hold them up so that the divisions in the desert could come back. (Time expired)

I rise to speak about the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. Just in case you've been listening to parliament and you just heard the member for Kennedy talk for 15 minutes on everything but that, that is what we're addressing in the chamber at the moment. I want to pay credit to both the member for Spence, who has served in uniform, did serve in an Australian Army infantry battalion and, quite frankly, didn't deserve the carry-on and the pure misinformation that came from the member for Kennedy.

On a point of order: I apologise—

The member for Kennedy hasn't got the call yet.

Furthermore, I want to pay credit to the member for Menzies, who got to his feet and corrected the record.

One thing in that 15-minute spiel that the member for Kennedy did not talk about was the defacing over the weekend of memorials on Anzac Parade. I went past there this morning because I'd heard reports over the weekend that some of those memorials had been defaced. I saw it with my own eyes. On the Vietnam memorial and on the Korean War Memorial, vandals had spray-painted all sorts of rubbish, frankly, on there. As I said in a doorstop this morning to the media, that is an absolute disgrace and dishonours the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, as well as their families and all those that have served. I'm glad that the Prime Minister so strongly spoke to that in question time.

The need for this bill—what this bill is about—is the creation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. I don't need to tell honourable members that our strategic circumstances have become far more serious in recent times. That has been confirmed through a number of reviews. The Defence Strategic Review and the National Defence Strategy are just two of the documents. We understand that there has not been a time in recent history where strategic circumstances have been so unsure without an appropriate level of strategic reassurance from, in particular, China, which has increased spending on its military by 75 per cent. That's a meteoric expansion of defence capability and, as I say, with no reassurance about the strategic intent. Obviously, that becomes a concern to countries like ours which want to maintain a strategic equilibrium, as the foreign minister Penny Wong has said, and which want to ensure that countries, large and small, can enjoy their sovereignty within the framework of a rules based order.

It is important that this parliament is able not only to examine Defence projects to build capability but also to have the opportunity in a classified setting to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in place, because we will be increasing our defence spending so that we have a capability that will be able to deter those that might seek to coerce us in the future. When we talk about an expansion of Australia's defence spending, it will expand from 2.04 per cent of GDP in the last budget to 2.4 per cent of GDP over the next 10 years in order to ensure that we've got the capability to back up our words. Capability and intent are important for deterrence, which the Defence Strategic Review made very clear is so essential for these uncertain times.

Of course, with civilian oversight of the military, as we have in our great democracy, we need to ensure that there is an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny so that there's good decision-making and a really efficient and prudent use of those taxpayer funds but also that there is a more informed parliament and, by extension through us, public. I would just mention that last week, here in Canberra, Richard Marles, the defence minister and member for —how do you say it?

An honourable member: Corio

The member for Corio launched a paper that I've written for the Lowy Institute around AUKUS that went exactly to the requirement for AUKUS and, in particular, pillar I—the SSNs, the submarines—as part of our deterrence. It also spoke to the environment and times in which we live. That parliamentary scrutiny that I've talked about and the reason that we need to be writing and speaking about Defence strategic policy is part of that educational process of the public as well. What we want is a more informed parliament and good decision-making, but we also need to bring the public along with us so that there's sensible strategic decision-making for the future, not kneejerk, reactionary, performative politics that unfortunately we see more and more of these days. That is not helpful. We need evidence based public policy in Defence like we do in every other area.

The reason for our creating this Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, which will be established by the bill, is to inject a greater level of parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight into the Defence portfolio in line with the Albanese government's commitment to transparency and accountability, evidenced by the fact, and this is just one example, that the National Anti-Corruption Commission has now been going for a year—not something those opposite were interested in seeing happen, like this committee, actually, in the past. I do acknowledge the supporters of this defence committee on the other side, but it certainly wasn't always the way. Whilst in government the coalition did not want and was on the record as not wanting this increased parliamentary scrutiny.

This committee will build on the useful and necessary scrutiny of Defence, particularly the major capability projects, where so much of defence funding is spent. The Senate estimates process obviously provides a level of transparency, but further scrutiny will be there by modelling this new defence committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I'm proud to be a member of and is fantastically chaired by the member for Wills, who happens to be in the chamber with us. The member for Wills does a fantastic job on that committee, maintaining a bipartisan focus on the national interest, and that is what we have all hoped would again be the case with this Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence.

This committee will supersede and enhance the defence related functions currently undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade but put it up a level in its scrutiny and access to information. Establishing this committee is a priority of our government. We are very much committed to passing the enabling legislation as soon as practicable. To support the establishment of the committee we provided in the budget $17.5 million over a decade for the effective running of that committee to ensure it's resourced appropriately.

Just quickly, on the origins of the bill, it was a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making, which followed a referral from the DPM, the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Corio. The inquiry was initiated to deliver a commitment of the Australian Labor Party's national platform. Previous inquiries have recommended the establishment of a statutory committee on defence. That was recommended back as far as 2018. As I mentioned, the Leader of the Opposition and many other members on the front bench opposite were members of that former government in 2019. But they disagreed with the creation of this statutory committee, and they said:

There are already substantial Parliamentary oversight measures in place for the Department of Defence. Australia has enjoyed a long period of broad bipartisan agreement on Defence policy, operations and force structure and additional measures to enhance bipartisanship are not necessary at this time.

That wasn't long ago. Where the former coalition government were unwilling to take this up, the Albanese government is acting—on the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, in particular.

This bill will create the committee responsible for reviewing, monitoring and reporting on the administration and operations of all Australian defence agencies, including the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Signals Directorate. Those organisations will remain subject to oversight by the PJCIS. Just to clarify that: the ADF, the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be under the new PJCD committee, whilst DIO, AGO and ASD will remain subject to oversight by the PJCIS.

I could speak more on this, but I have another commitment in another place, and there are other speakers here to continue to outline why this is important and also some concerns that the bipartisan support for this may not be there. We need a bipartisan approach to this committee, as we do for the intelligence and security committee. We need a bipartisan approach for the testing of ideas, and also a bipartisan approach on the national interest.

Parliamentary scrutiny is absolutely vital in ensuring the best decision-making and the most efficient and prudent use of taxpayer funds, along with a more informed parliament—and, by extension, through us in this place, a more informed public, because that's part of our responsibility.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to the continued improvement of our national security laws. I can attest to that, having spent the last two years as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This is to ensure that our agencies—our law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies—are best equipped to continue their work to keep Australians safe and to protect our way of life. The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, the PJCD, established by the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024, will inject greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight into the Defence portfolio, in line with the Albanese government's commitment to transparency and accountability. It is necessary to ensure that parliament can also examine the defence projects and Australia's defence strategy in greater detail and, of course, in a classified setting, where required, with the appropriate safeguards in place.

The Albanese Labor government takes these duties very seriously. We have heard previous speakers on this, like the member for Solomon, who spoke eloquently around the point of bipartisanship and the importance for a consensus around what are critically important national security issues for this nation. Let me just expand on this approach for a moment. What we mean by that is that it's not just agreeing on everything all the time; there is a contest of ideas. There are differences of views right across this place and in the other place—even within parties, as well. What we mean by a bipartisan approach is checking the partisan politics at the door when it comes to the work that we do. For example, in the intelligence and security committee—and I would hope in the parliamentary joint defence committee—we park partisan politics at the door and in good faith, after vigorous debate, analysis and engagement, seek to try to reach a consensus on what we consider to be critically important for the national interest in and around our national security. That is a really important approach. It means not playing politics with such important issues but, in a genuine, good faith effort, seeking to find the best possible set of recommendations, the best analysis and the best understanding of what is required for the government to put in place.

This approach is more crucial than ever, particularly in the challenging and complex strategic national security environment that we find ourselves in currently. The establishment of the PJCD implements a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Inquiry into International Armed Conflict Decision Making, following a referral from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence. That inquiry was initiated to deliver a commitment in the Australian Labor Party's national platform. The PJCD is modelled, as we've heard, on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, and will supersede and enhance the defence related functions currently undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

As I mentioned, as chair of the PJCIS I'm very cognisant of the important role the PJCIS has always played in doing the necessary work, the extremely rigorous and methodical work—and bipartisan when necessary but certainly the work done in an atmosphere conducive to the national interest coming first and foremost, rather than partisan or temporary political gains, reaching consensus where it is possible in the national interest. That has meant the membership is by appointment, and the structure of the PJCIS has been agreed upon. The intelligence security committee, which the PJCD is modelled on, vigorously scrutinises bills and debates those bills as national security bills in a classified setting, mainly, and comes to agreed positions and recommendations. Then we write up, usually, a joint report that is bipartisan from all members, no matter what side of politics they are on.

The PJCD is modelled on the PJCIS structurally but also in the context of the manner in which it should go about doing the very critical and important national security work it will be tasked with doing. That is just as important as the elements in the bill—the structural elements, the foundational set-up of the PJCD. It is that understanding of the critical nature of the work that is being undertaken and the importance of members of that committee undertaking that work in good faith, regardless of what side we are on in politics. In a sense I'm making a case for not playing politics with very important matters, especially the matters that pertain to national security and the security of Australians.

Those opposite me would know that this type of good-faith arrangement, this type of effort, this bipartisanship—when it's possible—in the PJCIS makes us stronger and safer as a nation. With the PJCIS, which I chair, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, appoints the members of the committee, and will do so for the PJCD. They will be a majority of government members, and non-government members will make up the rest, from both houses of parliament. The arrangements for information handling are closely modelled on the PJCIS, and the committee proceedings will be conducted in private and appropriately secure settings—unless the minister has authorised public hearings to look at certain bills. This would be with the exception of the committee's consideration of the annual reports of defence agencies. That is to ensure that sensitive information can be adequately assessed and analysed by committee members.

Unfortunately, we still see the coalition, those opposite, not able to resist the temptation to play politics with the establishment of this very important defence committee. They are playing politics with Australia's national security. While we are focused squarely on keeping Australians safe, squarely on our national security, squarely on our national interest, they have decided to oppose this bill. I say to those opposite that I've seen this story before. They ran this argument with respect to the PJCIS increasing its numbers. The Prime Minister already has the power to appoint any member of parliament to the PJCIS; that is done in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition under the Intelligence Services Act, and, as I said, the PJCD will be modelled on the PJCIS. That is a longstanding process, and it will be no different for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence; that process will be the same. It's quite galling because previous inquiries have recommended the establishment of a statutory committee on defence; we've seen that in this place. The Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended, in 2018, the creation of a similar joint statutory committee. When the former government, the Morrison government—the coalition—responded to this recommendation in 2019, they disagreed with it, saying, 'There are already enough substantial parliamentary oversight measures in place for the Department of Defence.' Okay. So they knocked it back in 2019 on that inquiry's recommendation. When they were in government, they rejected the establishment of the PJCD. It is a committee that will allow for more scrutiny, so they are knocking back the need for more scrutiny. When they were in government, they dodged accountability, they reduced transparency and they rejected scrutiny—clearly, from their own statements.

Those opposite me engaged in grandstanding and used fearmongering about national security and defence. They do it all the time, but then they refuse to accept the recommendations that would actually improve both—provide transparency and accountability. Now they're back in opposition, and there's still this aversion to greater scrutiny by the parliament. I don't understand it except for the politics—again, playing politics with this. Where the former government was unwilling to take this up, this government—the Albanese Labor government—is actually acting on those long-standing recommendations and establishing this defence committee.

I would say those opposite would have to explain their position for themselves. It is not just disappointing but frankly, I think, irresponsible. Given the current strategic circumstances that we face, there is a critical need for a committee such as the PJCD, which can provide effective parliamentary scrutiny of Defence in a classified environment. Everyone agrees upon that and everyone has agreed upon that and then, at the eleventh hour, those opposite have decided to say no. We've been clear from the beginning as a government that this committee recommended it be modelled on the PJCIS and that's long enjoyed bipartisan support. It's particularly disappointing because, as I said, everyone has agreed to it. Even those opposite have agreed on it. The shadow minister for defence, the member for Canning, said in March of this year, 'I think that would be a really important development for a lot of parliamentarians who care about our troops and want to see the best for them.' That was in relation to the establishment of this defence committee. As far back as 2020, the shadow minister for defence wrote an opinion piece where he called for a joint defence committee and said: 'Parliamentary scrutiny of Defence is broken and needs fixing. If we are serious about increased transparency and accountability then we need proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force.' That's the shadow minister for defence.

I wonder what happened in the opposition party room last week. Were all of those statements suddenly forgotten and then they decided, 'Well, hold on, we don't want more scrutiny, we have changed our minds'? They said it when they were in government, they said it when they're in opposition and now, at the eleventh hour, when we're about to put forward the bill, they oppose it.

The PJCD will be responsible for reviewing, monitoring and reporting on the administration and the operations of all Australian defence agencies, including the ADF, the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs and all of the intelligence organisations—the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation—while the Australian Signals Directorate will remain subject to oversight by the PJCIS. There are going to be a broad range of functions that will be established by this bill to act as standing terms of reference for the PJCD and provide for greater oversight, transparency and accountability in significant areas within the Defence portfolio: reviewing admin and expenditure; reviewing defence agencies including annual reports; considering white papers, reviews and other policy documents; strategy, planning and contingency; scrutinising Australia's defence capability; development acquisitions and sustainment; considering matters relating to personnel and veterans affairs, examining and being apprised of war or war-like operations, including ongoing conflicts; monitoring the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non-conflict operations, domestically and internationally; reviewing the implementation of the government's response and monitoring the findings of any royal commission inquiring into matters relating to the defence of Australia or any agency; and considering the operation, resources and performance of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. These are critically important tasks that need to be taken up, and those opposite are delaying and blocking this bill.

As Australians, we are fortunate to have a level of peace, security and stability that countless others around the world are not able to appreciate. It can often be easy to take this stability and this security that we enjoy for granted, to think it's just this permanent fixture of Australian life, but the reality is that upholding and protecting that standard of security requires a constant level of vigilance.

The creation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is just one element, and a very crucial element, of the Albanese Labor government's national security and transparency agenda. This bill puts forward those elements of vigilance to do our job, and the government is committed to continuously updating our systems and our security infrastructure to pre-empt and overcome challenges to keep Australians safe and our national interests upheld. That is my task, as the chair of the Parliament Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I take that job especially seriously, as do the members of my committee. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will take this important responsibility, this sacrosanct responsibility, just as seriously. I urge the opposition to stop playing politics with this bill and to support it, as they have in the past, so that we can pass it through this place.

I rise to support the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. I do so because I believe that the new committee can make an important contribution towards oversight, accountability and transparency on decisions and policies relating to defence and also security matters.

Proposed section 110ABB sets out the functions of the committee, and I note they include:

(a) to review the administration and expenditure of Australian defence agencies, including their annual reports;

(b) to consider white papers, reviews and other policy documents dealing with the strategies, planning and contingencies of Australian defence agencies;

(c) to scrutinise Australia's defence capability development, acquisitions and sustainment;

(d) to consider matters relating to defence personnel and veterans' affairs—

very important—

(e) to examine and be appraised of war or warlike operations, including ongoing conflicts;

(f) to monitor the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non-conflict operations domestically and internationally;

(g) to monitor and review the implementation of the Australian Government's response to the findings of any Royal Commission … that inquires into a matter relating to the defence of Australia, the Department, the ADF or another Australian defence agency;

(h) to consider the operations, resources, independence and performance of the Inspector-General ADF;

(i) to inquire into matters referred to the Committee by:

(i) a Minister; or

(ii) a resolution of either House of the Parliament;

(j) on the Committee's own initiative—

it may—

… inquire into other matters relating to one or more Australian defence agencies;

When you go through and review the functions of the committee, it is very obvious that they really do ensure that oversight, accountability and transparency on decisions and policies relating to defence matters are improved. This is a really positive thing for our country and a very positive thing for decision-making. Hopefully, it will lead to better outcomes for the men and women who serve our nation in uniform and also for veterans and their families.

Proposed subsection 110ABA(2) sets out the proposed membership of the committee, and it provides that the committee can have up to 13 committee members and must be composed of at least eight members: two senators who are government members, two members of the House of Representatives who are government members, two senators who are non-government members and two members of the House of Representatives who are non-government members. Members from the House of Representatives are nominated by the Prime Minister and members who are senators are nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

I should note that crossbench members are not excluded from membership of the committee under the proposed legislation, so I was very surprised to hear that the member for Canning is proposing to move an amendment effectively banning crossbench members from sitting on the committee. As I heard those words, I was taken aback by the sheer undemocratic arrogance of that move. It smacks of the old 'the sun will never set on the empire' view of Australian politics that some in the major parties still adhere to. Politics is changing. Poll after poll, election after election, demonstrates that support for the major parties is slipping away. Every day, every week, every month, every year, every election, support for the major parties ebbs. The crossbench continues to grow. The sun is setting on the old political empires of the major parties, and that's the cold, hard truth. Representation on committees such as this can't be denied. It's undemocratic and just plain wrong.

The foreshadowed amendment suggests that coalition MPs are somehow more trustworthy than crossbench members on matters pertaining to defence and national security. Well, let me talk about some of the coalition trustworthiness that I can speak to. I have been in coalition partyroom meetings where I have been able to read, almost in real time, in the digital media what was happening in those meetings and who was saying what.

Order, the member for Calare will resume his seat. The member for Cowper on a point of order.

The point of order is relevance. The information that the former member of the Nationals received in partyroom meetings is not relevant to the debate on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill.

Thank you, Member for Cowper. The Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury.

On the point of order, I'd like to thank the opposition member for drawing people's attention to the matters the member is raising. They are highly relevant to the bill and to the amendment which has been moved.

The assistant minister will resume his seat. I'll make the observation, whether it was a point of order or not. The member for Calare will continue speaking. He is being relevant in talking about the reasons he thinks that crossbench members should be privy to the discussions about being on the committee. He's giving his reasons as to why he thinks so, so I think he is being relevant. The member for Calare in continuation.

I'll just caution those opposite on making too many objections, lest the public think that it may have been one of those members who was doing the leaking. Seriously, I have been in joint coalition partyroom meetings where you could have sworn that the media had a real-time transcript of what was happening in those meetings. In fact, there were so many partyroom leaks that I don't even think an in-house plumber could have plugged them all. I would also, from time to time, read in the media about what was happening in cabinet, taking leaks and untrustworthiness to a whole new level. I also note that in 2022 the current Attorney-General reportedly wrote to the former Prime Minister and member for Cook to tell him—you guessed it—to stop leaking. He was leaking!

The opposition should spare us all the sanctimonious and self-serving nonsense that only those in major parties can be trusted with respect to important matters of defence and national security. I will support this bill. I'll be opposing the opposition's undemocratic and unmeritorious amendment, and I hope that those opposite, when they consider the amendment, will remember that they need to get a plumber to do something about those leaks.

I support the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. It will make a significant change to the quality of scrutiny, oversight and, ultimately, decision-making when it comes to some of the gravest matters that the government has responsibility for, namely defence and military operations, particularly any decision that involves the commitment of Australian service people to conflict, which has generally been conflict overseas. It's a really welcome change that has been delivered through a characteristically thorough and substantial process. I'll talk a little bit about that, and I also want to acknowledge some of the people who have worked to get us to this point in the parliament and in the broader community. But, at the outset, I think in a week when there are lots of things going on—as is always the case here—it is important to say that, by creating a dedicated committee on defence which has the ability to receive classified information and briefings, the quality of parliamentary engagement on defence decision-making will be materially improved. As I said, when we think about that kind of decision-making, there aren't decisions that government makes which are more grave than the decision to involve this country in war or in warlike operations.

In her speech this morning, the new Governor-General, Sam Mostyn, spoke about the three big building blocks that are the foundation of Australian life: our First Nations heritage—we have the longest continuous civilisation on Earth; the British institutions that form the basis of our style of government and our way of life in other respects; and, of course, the waves of migrants that have produced the incredible multicultural dynamism and diversity that is such a strong part of Australian life today. But, if you take those institutions—we're fortunate to be the inheritors of the British democratic system, with a parliament and other features like free press and an independent judiciary and so on—it has always been the case that the decision to involve the country in war or warlike operations is the prerogative of the executive. In the early part of the life of this nation, that was subordinated to the decisions made in the United Kingdom but, certainly, going forward from the time of the World War II they have been decisions that have been wholly made by the Australian government. They are made through executive prerogative—through a Federal Executive Council process that results in a decision by the Governor-General.

The involvement of the parliament in that decision-making has been limited. The extent of parliamentary involvement has been provided through a range of parliamentary conventions and norms. One of them has been that, where Australia does make a decision to get involved in military conduct, the Prime Minister will bring a motion to the parliament that will allow the matter to be debated—that's something that has occurred. But there is no formal requirement that parliament be involved in sanctioning that kind of decision, and there are good reasons why that has not been the case—part of it has to do with timeliness; part of it has to do with the sensitive nature of the material that would be considered in making that decision. And there are some other factors too. I point out to those who advocate, quite reasonably, for the consideration of parliament being involved in deciding whether or not a country goes to war, that it's worth remembering that if that were to be the case then once that decision is taken, in effect, the parliament has given assent to that course of conduct rather than occupying a position where it can, rightly, scrutinise the course of that conduct as it goes forward.

But what has happened in this case is that we have recognised that the decision-making framework and processes in relation to defence, military and security matters—particularly when they involve war or warlike operations—should always be capable of improvement. We should never stop and take our democratic institutions, processes and culture for granted. We've seen around the world how those things can grow weaker over time and how they can become ill suited to the circumstances of a changing world. It's absolutely right that we're prepared to, from time to time, have a look at the institutions, the structures, the processes and the culture around that kind of decision-making and ask ourselves if they are fit for purpose and if they can be improved. That's what we were prepared to do in this case.

I want to recognise it's a conversation that has been carried by lots of people in civil society, particularly groups like Australians for War Powers Reform led by Alison Broinowski, the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network, the Medical Association for the Prevention of War and a number of other groups. It's a healthy part of our democracy that we have civil society groups like that, which address these kinds of serious matters, consider what's going on in other countries around the world and foster a lively and robust debate about how things sit in this country, whether they have drifted—which I think was the case with some of the conventions around the discussion of military engagement in this place—and how we might improve them.

The outcome we have here is the creation of a new committee dedicated to that purpose, covering all of the things the member for Wills and the member for Calare mentioned: reviewing administration expenditure, considering white paper reviews and other policy and strategy documents, scrutinising Australia's defence capability acquisitions and sustainment, looking into matters related to the broad wellbeing of defence personnel—and former defence personnel, in terms of Veterans' Affairs—and examining and being appraised of war or warlike operations.

The creation of this committee started with a resolution in the Labor platform. I can't remember at what particular conference it was moved in the past, but it was refreshed in 2021. I moved that motion, and the member for Bruce seconded that motion, which was to ensure, in the next term of parliament in which Labor formed government, that there was a committee inquiry on the question of war powers—that essentially a future Labor government would refer the issue of how Australia makes decisions to send service personnel into international armed conflict to an inquiry to be conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

That's exactly what happened when we were elected. That referral came from the Minister for Defence to the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It was very ably chaired by the member for Bruce. It was a very interesting, thorough and substantial inquiry. We had public hearings and submissions and all of the things that inquiries should consider. I particularly acknowledge the evidence we heard from veterans Mr John Phillips and Mr Cameron Leckie. They said very clearly to us that they wanted to see greater parliamentary involvement. They wanted to see change occur that would sharpen up and deepen the way that the parliament is able to engage on these things in order to deliver scrutiny, oversight and contestability—all the things we know are hallmarks of quality decision-making in a democracy.

Then, through the inquiry and its report, one of the key recommendations—there were a number of them—was the creation of this committee. The Minister for Defence received the report and responded to the committee in quick time, and the best evidence of that is the fact that here we are, about to make a significant change to the parliamentary committee architecture in a very meaningful way. The member for Wills, with whom I serve on the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, described how valuable and important that committee is and the way in which this new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will in many ways mirror the way that committee is established, is structured and works.

I've covered the terms of reference, but, of the two further things that will be critical to the way this committee will do good work, one is its capacity to consider classified information briefings. It's in the nature of defence and security that a lot of the material is highly sensitive, and that makes it difficult to create an appropriate way in which parliamentarians can engage with that. But it's important that we do. It's vital we don't slip into a set of circumstances where those kinds of matters are regarded as so sensitive and so much the special preserve of some defence and security elite that they don't get tested by the broader engagement of those sent here as representatives of the people. I completely agree with the member for Calare when he says that it's quite right that the membership not be restricted in a way that would exclude one group of parliamentarians or another. Ultimately, the choice of the committee membership is a serious one, like with the PJCIS, and it's a matter for the Prime Minister to determine through the appropriate forms of consultation.

But, in addition to its ability to receive classified material and in addition to its terms of reference, the third most—or, as you could argue, the first most—important quality will be the culture of the committee. The culture of the PJCIS has a core of bipartisanship in the way that committee works. There is a commitment to the intensity and seriousness of the workload involved. And there's a genuine application by all members of the committee to give their best service in that committee membership, to take that work seriously and to try to deliver improvements and solutions to problems and issues that arise. I'm confident that this new defence committee will set off in that same vein and have those same qualities. If that is the case, it will make a really important difference to the quality of defence and security decision-making in Australia, and that's no small thing.

There were other recommendations from the inquiry report that led to the creation of this new committee. They're important too, and I'll cover a couple of them, because I think they flesh out the value of being able to look at this area and consider how we improve it as we go on. The other recommendations included seeking to formalise to a greater degree the expectation that, where there are major military operations, the responsible minister or the Prime Minister will table a written statement identifying the reasons for and objectives of those operations and the legal basis on which they've occurred. It will be a more formal recognition that it would make sense in those circumstances for parliament to sit as soon as it possibly can so that an appropriate motion can be moved and debate can occur. That has been one of the conventions in the past, but it has tended to be used, I think, in a less timely way than is desirable.

Those are some of the further changes that, along with the creation of this committee, will actually make a meaningful difference to how the parliament understands, comments on, scrutinises and debates some of these incredibly serious things. They're matters and endeavours that inevitably cost Australia a great deal not just in terms of the resources that go into them but, most importantly, in the lives that are affected by those comments. I do note that, to the extent that some opposite have queried whether this change is really valuable, there was the 2018 bipartisan committee report—Contestability and consensus: A bipartisan approach to more effective parliamentary engagement with Defence. It recommended we create a committee like this. The Morrison government said, 'No thanks,' which I think was a shame. This is one example of how the Albanese Labor government, while doing a whole bunch of really important, substantial things for people's broader wellbeing, are also making lasting changes to the quality of our parliamentary democracy.

I rise to support the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. First, I want to reflect—my feeling and what I think is the feeling of many in the parliament—that the first job of government and of parliament is to keep people safe. Defence and our defence capabilities really go to the heart of that. For me, this is a bill that increases the accountability of Defence and the transparency of Defence to the parliament, which I think is absolutely critical. Certainly when you look at the times that we are entering—where you're looking at increased spending in defence, but also the difficult defence environment that we are facing as clouds gather around the world—it's even more timely and more appropriate that Defence has greater parliamentary oversight, which this bill supports.

The other piece I'd like to note in relation to parliamentary oversight is the role of community engagement. I was concerned by a recent poll by the US Studies Centre, at the University of Sydney, which found that only 42 per cent of those polled thought the AUKUS submarines were worth the cost while 32 per cent actually opposed acquisition of nuclear powered submarines. I note this, not because of the merits or non-merits of the AUKUS agreement, but to make the point that if the community is not with the parliament and the government on its defence activities, then there is a real danger that these defence plans, which are many years in the making—often decades in the planning—are vulnerable.

It is critical that we do level with the community, that we really engage with the community on some of these major strategic defence questions that have arisen. I will cite, for example, AUKUS. Because it has support from both of the major parties there has not been a great deal of debate in the parliament about this. This has been an area of concern for members of the public, not least because they haven't had the opportunity that I think many would like to understand the reasons, the alternatives and why AUKUS was, and still is, the preferred approach for the government as well as the opposition. I've always said I support AUKUS, but I do believe that the community needs to have better engagement on this issue. I feel that this is an opportunity, through this parliamentary committee, to further do that.

I'd like to very briefly talk about the composition of the committee since this is an issue that members of the coalition such as the member for Fisher have brought up. His concern is that members of the crossbench could be contemplated as potential, though not necessary, members of this committee. I call on the coalition to reflect on what has been happening over a significant period of time and really culminated in the last election: 30 per cent of the country did not vote for a major party, and that has led to the largest crossbench in recent parliamentary history. I think the lesson from that election is really that people are concerned with what the major parties are doing in terms of building their trust, and they are looking for alternatives. I think that's really the message that the member for Fisher should take from this and consider separately: Why has a significant part of the community said they do not trust the major parties on the major issues? They would prefer an alternate to represent them, so why shouldn't that representation be borne out in a defence committee.

I note that members of the coalition have said, 'You can't trust the members of the crossbench not to leak or to not behave inappropriately.' I'm going to finish my speech with the observation that I'm a member of two committees—the economics committee and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration—and note that there's been one leak from one of my committees, the economics committee, and that was extremely concerning to me. But the one person who I know did not leak from that committee was the member of the crossbench—myself—because I wasn't there on the day of the leak. I wasn't there for the private hearing with the RBA and the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Notes from that meeting were leaked to the Financial Review, and the one person who couldn't have done that was me because I wasn't there. I wasn't able to attend that day. I think that, when the coalition is particularly keen on calling the ethics of the crossbench to account, they perhaps might reflect on that experience and consider whether it is fair in that case and others and whether that is an accurate representation of the likely outcomes of these pieces. Certainly, I and members of the crossbench take our parliamentary duties extremely seriously, including the confidentiality of the committee process. Frankly, I was appalled to see that a committee would leak something like that, but that wasn't me. It was definitely the majors.

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024, which, put simply, is creating a new committee to have parliamentary oversight of defence matters in this building that would be able to deal with classified material—top secret material.

This morning, we saw something that I don't think I've ever seen in my 16 to 17 years in parliament when we have welcomed a Governor-General, commencing their term on 1 January. We saw something that we don't see very often, which was the Great Hall open and all the doors open so that, if you stood under the flagpole, you could look north all the way through the building out to the front, under the Great Verandah, past the First Nations area and all the way up to the War Memorial. One of the design features of this building is that north-south line, where the public can theoretically go straight through the building all the way to the Prime Minister sitting at her or his desk. The other line of power is obviously, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, through your chair—the Speaker's chair—through the building, through the chamber, under the flagpole and then out to the Senate on the other side.

We don't see the building open like that very often. But, as the Prime Minister mentioned in question time today, it reminds us of the things that must be on the minds of the parliament, the executive and the Prime Minister in making a decision to send people into harm's way in the service of our nation. Obviously, that other line of power is because the Governor-General is actually the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force. I'll just touch on some of those duties. The Governor-General's duties as commander-in-chief are, through the Federal Executive Council, to appoint the Chief of the Defence Force and the service chiefs; to commission officers in the Navy, Army and Air Force; to present colours, banners and other honours to military units and personnel; to visit military units to acknowledge the service of service personnel; and to lead Australia's response, celebration and acknowledgement at commemorative events. So the Governor-General does have that significant role in terms of engaging with Defence, and it was great today to hear the Governor-General, Her Excellency Sam Mostyn, acknowledge her 90-year-old father, who was there, who's also been a member of the Defence Force. It was quite a symmetry.

Whilst the Governor-General is the commander-in-chief, Australia has that strange tradition where it's not the Governor-General who declares we are going off to war or into a conflict. That would be the executive. It has changed over time, obviously, from when the colonies combined to form that country called Australia on 1 January 1901. There has been a gradual change from World War I, where, basically, because the United Kingdom declared they were at war, Billy Hughes said, 'We are at war.' He said that because the British parliament declared they were at war. Prime Minister Menzies, at the start of World War II, took the same approach. But things have changed, obviously. It's important that we look at that relationship between the ability to go to war and what the defence committee will do.

I see the deputy chair from the public works committee sitting opposite, and recently we had the chance to visit one of our great Defence facilities down in southern New South Wales, where we make some of our explosives—

Nearly all of them.

Nearly all of our explosives, yes. That part of the world has a big military footprint. We were able to go there as part of a Defence project being looked at by Public Works, which, as the name suggests, does not deal with top secret material. We were only dealing with military matters that are in the public domain.

I found out something that I hadn't realised about Australia when it came to the Australian contribution in World War II. The US paid for a lot of military input around the world in World War II. Countries had to pay back the United States after World War II. Obviously, they worked out some arrangements through the Marshall Plan where they were investing in democracies, trying to combat the rise of communism, throughout Europe in particular. But I hadn't realised that after World War II, whilst a lot of countries around the world owed the United States, the United States actually owed Australia money because of our significant military contribution.

Things have changed since then. The world still has a superpower like the United States, but it has become much more complex. We know that Australia is responsible for 11 per cent of the earth's surface with a population of less than 27 million. We're also seeing a global competition for resources. In fact, by any analysis, you would say that there's the greatest military build-up since World War II occurring right now. One of our major trading partners, if not our major trading partner, is part of that competition for resources. So we need to have a parliament that reflects the modern world and the challenges that come with that. We need a parliament that can examine Defence projects and Australia's defence strategy in greater detail, and to do so in a timely manner. We don't have time to wait for a steamboat to send a message out from the King back in Buckingham Palace. We now need to deal with the changing circumstances, things that can change in the blink of an eye.

The modern reality is we need to be able to do so in a secure environment, a classified setting where appropriate safeguards have been put in place—where phones are secure, where people can speak freely and where Defence officials or government officials can speak freely—and where the parliament can still do its job of scrutinising whatever that might be, whether that's a maritime project, a land project, an air project, a space project or a cyber project. We know that there are countries in that global competition that don't always respect our boundaries. Establishing the parliamentary joint committee on defence is a priority of the government, and we want to pass this legislation. We know that the money's already set aside for it. We want the parliamentary committee to become operational as soon as possible. Obviously, we still need to do all those normal things like diplomacy, deterrence and defence investment, but we also need to have that important part of a Westminster democracy which is parliamentary oversight.

This will give increased transparency, accountability and oversight into the defence portfolio. As I have noticed in the public works committee, there are significant amounts of money involved. Everything costs a lot in defence and not just because of the wedding-type prices that are handed out for anything to take place in defence. Establishing the committee builds on the first commitment of any government which is to keep Australians safe—and to do so in an atmosphere of transparency and accountability. We do so in the reality mapped out in a couple of reviews, but, particularly, I would like to thank Angus Houston and Stephen Smith for that strategic review. There are some scary things in that report. The reduced strategic warning time is obviously a big part of it. We don't have time just to sit around and send a drone over and see what's happening. Things can happen very quickly.

The culture of this proposed committee would be very much modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which has effectively been running for a decade. It will do some of the defence related functions currently being undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, a committee I have been on for a long time. But, as I mentioned earlier, that committee doesn't have the capacity to see secure material. We have the money. We just have to get through the parliamentary process of establishing the committee, which is a committee that came out of a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, a committee that has a lot of wise heads, heads that have corporate knowledge, both parliamentary and defence, and that benefits from those views. The committee undertook an inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making after being referred by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. So we obviously need a committee that has that parliamentary oversight.

I do suggest to the opposition, who have always been happy to recommend to me that I cross the floor on a particular matter, that this is something where they can exercise their free will.

They'll come over now.

Member for Hinkler, I was over that side of the parliament today, but it was only to sit with the member for Grey on a diabetes motion. It has been suggested that it is reckless and undemocratic, but let's be realistic. If you are a party of government, you are not someone who will sit around and sing 'Kumbaya'. If military intervention is coming over the horizon, you are not going to send a strongly worded letter, as some parties would suggest. We need to be realistic about the world that we live in. As I said, the largest military buildup since World War II is occurring right now.

We thought the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security model would be taken over to this new committee because there has been a long history of bipartisan support for it. I see the member for Canning is here. He formerly supported the establishment of the defence committee, saying, 'I think that would be a really important development for a lot of parliamentarians who care about our troops and want to see the best for them.' In fact, he wrote an opinion piece back in 2020 where he called for the committee, saying, 'Parliamentary scrutiny of Defence is broken and needs fixing.' The member for Canning also wrote: 'There is no independent joint defence committee where tough questions could be asked in a classified protected space. Parliamentary scrutiny these days is surface level. This is an area of urgent reform.'

On Friday I was in a meeting of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The Defence establishment were there saying, 'Well, we can't talk about that. I would love to talk about that but I can't talk about that because we are not in a secure facility.' So we do need that accountability and transparency.

I know that the committee will work well. It will include the ADF, the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The committee will have a broad range of functions that will be the standing terms of reference. It will provide greater oversight, greater transparency and accountability on significant areas of the Defence portfolio that are so needed. And it would have 13 members, with no more than seven from government and six non-government members from both houses of parliament. For those listening, that mirrors the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, as do all of the arrangements for information handling. All of the proceedings would be conducted in a secure and private setting.

I particularly commend the secretariats that work in those committees. I know it is incredibly difficult work, because things can change so quickly. I know that the Intelligence and Security Committee had—if you remember, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—that raft of security legislation that had to come through and be processed by the poor old secretariat. I think the member for Canning would agree that the poor old secretariat had to deal with incredible amounts of information in that process, and the secretariats that serve this parliament do an incredible job.

The culture of such a committee would be important. I think the starting culture must be bipartisan support. This is an opportunity for later speakers to indicate that. There is a saying from Trotsky: 'You may not be interested in war, but war will be interested in you.' For those that want to just say: 'We don't need any AUKUS. We don't need any defence. We can just sit around and sing kumbaya and send off a couple of petitions if we get in harm's way,' that's not a realistic understanding of the world we live in, in 2024. I urge all members of this parliament to support the legislation.

I thank all members who have spoken on this important bill, the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, established by this bill, will play a vital role in injecting greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight into the Defence portfolio. The government believes this enhanced scrutiny, in a classified setting, is critical, given the strategic circumstances our nation faces.

This should be something on which everyone in this parliament agrees. We need unity. We need consistency on this issue in parliament. Indeed, the shadow minister previously described parliamentary scrutiny of defence, in 2020, as 'broken and needs fixing', and said, 'This is an area of urgent reform.' But when the opposition had a chance to fix this, through this bill, they showed they are inconsistent, indecisive and weak. That comes from the fact that the member for Canning has foreshadowed a motion to amend the membership provisions of this bill.

This bill derives from a report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, on their inquiry into international armed-conflict decision-making. Recommendation 6 of that report was to establish a joint statutory committee on defence—the subject of this bill. Paragraph 3.86 of the committee's report states:

The Committee is of the view that a statutory committee on Defence matters should be modelled on the PJCIS to provide similar levels of oversight and accountability for Defence as applies to intelligence agencies, including scrutiny of annual reports, strategy and planning for capability development, acquisitions, and contingencies.

That was the bipartisan view of the committee that recommended the establishment of this very important committee.

The Liberal members on that committee accepted and supported that recommendation. So that is what the government has done; the government has accepted the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and has modelled the membership provisions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence exactly on the same provisions that exist in schedule 1, part 3 of the Intelligence Services Act, which establishes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The provisions relating to the appointment of members are exactly the same—that, in the House:

… the Prime Minister must consult with the Leader of each recognised political party that is represented in the House and does not form part of the Government.

There is a similar provision for the Senate.

There you have consistency between the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and this proposed committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence—accepting and adopting the recommendations of the bipartisan report. Yet we've had some Liberal members come in and say they now want to change that—that they don't accept that recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in their report. In fact, the amazing thing is that two of the members who spoke in this debate, in support of the amendments about to be moved by the member for Canning, were actually members of that committee and supported a different view when they put their names to the report from which this committee is derived. I'm referring to the member for Fisher and the member for Riverina, who came in here and said: 'Ignore what we said in the committee report. We've now changed our view, and we're going to go with the view of the member for Canning.' That is inconsistent and it is indecisive, and the one thing that Australia cannot afford now in the Defence portfolio is inconsistency and indecisiveness, because that equates to weakness and Australia cannot afford to be weak, given the current strategic circumstances that we face.

That is why I can indicate that the government will not be supporting the opposition's proposed amendments, which seek to exclude, in legislation, a section of the parliament, is not representative of the parliament and certainly does not represent this bill and this committee operating in the exact same way as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

This bill was a product of a bipartisan report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and we believe that that bipartisanship must be maintained in the approach to this bill and the membership of this proposed committee. We cannot be inconsistent when it comes to membership of this committee. This is not a bipartisan approach that's been proposed by the opposition, and that inconsistency will be a weakness. That is why the government will not be supporting the amendments from the opposition and why we will act to be consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and adopt the exact same provisions as those that exist with respect to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) The Committee is to consist of 13 Committee members and must include at least:

(a) 2 Government Senators; and

(b) 2 Opposition Senators; and

(c) 2 Government members of the House of Representatives; and

(d) 2 Opposition members of the House of Representatives.

(3) The Committee is to consist of:

(a) 7 members of the Government; and

(b) 6 members of the Opposition.

Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 21 (lines 13 to 16), omit subsection 110AEA(2), substitute:

(2) Before nominating the members, the Prime Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition.

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 21 (lines 21 to 29), omit subsections 110AEA(4) and (5), substitute:

(4) Before nominating the members, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must consult with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

I move these amendments on behalf of the coalition to safeguard the integrity of this proposed Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. This is a committee where important and sensitive national security matters will be discussed. It will be a committee bound by secrecy provisions to protect information that is vital to Australia's national interest. It will have access to information that needs to be protected in peace and especially safeguarded in war. Therefore, the membership of the joint defence committee must be selective—because of the obligation to protect sensitive information in the Australian national interest.

As a baseline, we must have a committee membership that is committed to defending the Australian people with lethal force if necessary. We must have a committee membership that supports and upholds our alliances, including with democratic partners like the United States and Israel, and we must have a committee membership that will protect sensitive information from our strategic adversaries. This is a modest but hugely consequential standard that we seek to uphold in the moving of these amendments. It reflects the long-held and practised consensus and convention of the two major parties that have governed Australia since the end of the Second World War, and, with the emergence of new threats and a new strategic disorder across the globe, it must now be insisted upon and codified in legislation.

We cannot risk the Greens becoming members of the joint defence committee, as they fail on all three tests that I have outlined. The Greens are ambivalent about military power as a precondition for a stable and lasting peace, the Greens wish to sever our alliances with the US and Israel, and the Greens celebrate the radical transparency that Julian Assange popularised with his reckless leaking of classified documents. Such people are not to fit to govern, nor are they fit to serve on this joint defence committee.

This joint defence committee is for parties of government and should be restricted to those capable of governing Australia. This amendment makes that crystal clear by preventing the Greens and like-minded crossbenchers from serving on the joint defence committee. We move this amendment in the Australian national interest, and, if it does not pass, we will vote against the government's bill.

I note that members on both sides of the House believe in the merits of this joint defence committee and the increased accountability and transparency that it will bring, particularly in times of war, when we have troops in the field, sailors at sea or aviators in the air, and questions need to be asked of strategy.

I also note the fine contributions in the House by members on both sides, including the member for Wentworth, who is eminently sensible on security matters. But I will leave it to the government to explain how they will safeguard our nation's secrets if they persist in leaving open the door of membership to radical Green activists in our parliament.

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Canning be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 is sorely needed in our community. This bill seeks to address some of the most troubling and serious matters that are facing people all across our community and particularly impacting young people. Without canvassing the specifics, my community has been very, very seriously affected by some terrible cases around the production and distribution of artificial intelligence generated deepfake material of a sexual nature. This bill specifically provides a legal framework that recognises this risk to people in our community. Indeed, it creates an appropriate set of penalties for those who seek to attack others using this vile material.

There are provisions under existing legislation to protect children from this sort of vile behaviour, but, up until this point, legislation has not kept pace with the development of technology and the rise of AI as a tool by which to produce and distribute this very troubling material. Fundamentally, at its heart is the very unfortunate reality that troubled and unscrupulous people across the community are taking advantage of artificial intelligence and other tools of technology to dishonestly and now illegally produce material that is specifically designed to denigrate and humiliate other people across our community. While it can be used against any member of the community, it is most often used against girls and young women. I think that everybody in this House can agree that in this day and age we want to ensure that women in our community aren't adversely impacted by this very unreasonable and very cruel use of technology in order to misrepresent them and their actions—to use or take advantage of them in the pursuit of terrible and abusive behaviour. As I said, this is sometimes for the purposes of denigrating and humiliating, and sometimes is for much more insidious purposes.

The reality is that the bill will create a new criminal offence framework that will ban the sharing of this non-consensual deepfake pornography. For those who aren't aware, this is essentially the use of artificial intelligence and other technological tools to manipulate existing photographs, or perhaps to generate new photographs or material that appears to be photographs of real people by using source material. But those photographs themselves are entirely fake; they aren't real, and they generally depict the victim in some form of compromising position of a sexual nature—nudity or an inappropriate matter. Of course, the victims of this material have in no way given their consent for that to be the case.

Unfortunately, with the rise of that technology we've seen the prevalence of these crimes, of this type of denigrating behaviour increasing, and that is of immense concern to all people across the community. These reforms make exceptionally clear that people who are engaging in the production and dissemination of this sexually explicit material without consent will be subject to very serious criminal penalties, including, for those who are found guilty, a maximum penalty of six years imprisonment for transmitting this sexual material without consent, and seven years imprisonment for what I term the 'aggravated' offences associated with it, where the person created the material themselves.

It should be made clear that this legislation goes to dealing with material depicting adults. There already exists a framework and a set of laws under the Criminal Code which deal with child abuse material separately. It must be noted that the sanctions with regard to that material are very serious as well, but they aren't the focus of this particular bill.

This bill deals with matters where a person transmits this material across the community by using a carriage service—perhaps a phone or over the internet. It deals with material where the person depicted appears to be 18 years or older and with material where the person is depicted in a sexual manner or pose or engaging in sexual activity, or indeed where someone's sexual organs are used in the depiction. And of course it deals with matters where consent isn't provided. These are really troubling matters for our community to talk about, because these offences are so awful. Their impact on people, particularly on young people and particularly on women in our community, is extraordinarily profound. There is absolutely no legitimate purpose for engaging in the generation of this deepfake pornographic material that depicts a non-consenting person in our community. We will be working really closely with the state and territory governments to implement these laws and to ensure they are appropriately supported through policing as well as the education that necessarily goes with emerging technologies. This will ensure that our community can, first and foremost, have an understanding of the risks associated with this technology and also the penalties that come against any individual or any group of people that engage in behaviour that is in contravention of this bill.

Just to be clear on a number of matters, the offences covered by this bill do not cover private communications between consenting adults. I think it's worth making that clear so that people across the broader community can understand that this is not a bill designed to impede upon the activities of consenting adults who are engaging in private matters. The government has no wish or interest to intervene in such activities or behaviour. It is not designed to curb what is essentially legal behaviour between consenting adults. This is specifically aimed at dealing with, as I said, the production and dissemination of material that depicts non-consenting adults.

As I said earlier, my community has specifically dealt with this challenge in a very confronting manner. There are very strong views across our community about how the government should be responding, how governments of all persuasions at all levels should be responding, to this emerging risk. I am very pleased to see our government, the Albanese Labor government, bring forward, in an efficient but considered manner, a bill that seeks to address this emerging threat to our community and create a legislative framework that will appropriately address it to protect our kids, protect women and, indeed, protect all of our community against this awful and insidious behaviour.

The Status of Women Report Card released in March this year contains some sobering statistics, including that 57 per cent of women who recently experienced sexual harassment experienced it electronically, such as online or on a phone. The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 is an important bill. These amendments meet a need to strengthen existing offences which deal with the unlawful use of private sexual material. The amendments create offences that prohibit both the creation of and the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit material depicting adults online. Children are dealt with under separate legislation. The bill goes further and also creates an offence in relation to images that have been created or altered with technology, including AI—in other words, what we refer to as 'deepfakes'. It's currently not illegal to create a fake AI generated pornographic image.

Obviously, as technology advances at a rapid pace, it becomes easier and quicker to generate sexually explicit material and images. The technology is so sophisticated, it's become difficult to detect whether an image is real or not, and there are several issues here. AI enables an image to be manipulated so people can be depicted in a highly convincing way, physically misrepresenting them, making it look like they're doing something that they have not done. Critically, whether the images are real or false, the key issue is consent, or lack of it, and the devastating impact this could have on the person depicted, on their personal and professional lives. The purpose of creating those images is almost always to deliberately cause harm—to intimidate, shame, bully and frighten people.

I'm very supportive of these amendments. This bill is the criminal justice response to the unlawful use of non-consensual sexual images. But it's only one part of a wider reform agenda in relation to online safety. And this reform agenda for online safety is only one part of the national approach required to address the worrying issue of intimidation and violence, particularly against women and children.

In the context of this bill, we should be very concerned about the broader and long-term cultural and social impact of image based abuse in our communities and particularly on women. The sharing of intimate images without consent, whether they're deepfake or otherwise, largely reflects a concerning culture of harassment and misogyny. AI and technology are allowing perpetrators to amplify that culture further, with devastating reach.

While this bill rightly focuses on the unlawful use of private sexual material, victims of deepfakes can also experience an intense sense of violation even when the deepfakes are not sexual in nature. Having your identity co-opted and being made to appear to say or do things that you would never say or do can undermine your sense of self and change how others see you.

I've already discussed the pressing need to address deepfakes to preserve our democracy. Effective use of deepfakes by bad actors can create confusion and mistrust that will make it difficult for our democratic and economic institutions to function. Deepfakes present huge risks in relation to the spread of misinformation both in elections and, importantly, in scams.

There's a significant asymmetry between the ease and cost with which misleading AI generated content can be created and disseminated, and the time and expense of having it removed, including when it's of a sexual nature but also, especially, when the content is not of a sexual nature. This is a huge issue, wider than the scope of this bill, and I urge the government to address it urgently. We need to find creative ways to address this imbalance between the ease of creation and the cost of removal.

Fundamentally we require a massive cultural change that has many parts to it. Legislation plays an important role in defining acceptable norms, but cultural change will only happen if it's also addressed at an educational level with young people. I welcomed the announcement on 17 June of a new phase of the Stop it at the Start campaign, which aims to give tools to parents and caregivers to challenge the echo chamber of disrespect that children are often immersed in online and to help young people navigate harmful content. The online normalisation of harmful stereotypes and behaviours against girls and women is having a particularly alarming impact on adolescent boys. To achieve cultural change we must address this on the actual platforms, apps and devices where that material is readily available and where the algorithms are targeting young men, and at an early age. I note the current Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act 2021, which is considering, among other things, a minimum age for access to social media and the prevention of online harms, including online and technology facilitated abuse.

My electorate of Curtin has provided the minister with a community submission, following the completion of an online safety survey by 600 constituents, testing their support for stronger regulation. Seventy-five per cent of respondents want the Online Safety Act to regulate technology facilitated abuse, and 86 per cent want the act to address emerging technology risks, including placing responsibility and expectations on platforms to protect users. This is a recurring theme and challenge. How can service providers effectively detect and remove offensive content, and, specifically in the context of this bill, deepfake content, and how do we effectively require them to do so?

We have some measures in place. The basic online safety expectations, the BOSE, are determined under the Online Safety Act and provide a framework of expectations to service providers of social media, mobile phone and other messaging services, and apps. Those providers are expected to ensure we can use their platforms and online services safely, with a minimisation of unlawful and harmful material and activity. The government amended the BOSE in May this year to include an expectation of providers to proactively minimise 'the extent to which online services are used to produce or facilitate unlawful or harmful material, including deepfake non-consensual intimate images'. This is a good start, but testing and policing this is a challenge. Serving a notice on providers that requires them to explain how they're doing this is not enough. The BOSE fall short of requiring platforms and service providers to develop ways of independently detecting harmful content and deepfake images.

I look forward to the report of the Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act, as well as the findings of the joint select committee on the impact of social media in Australia. I'll be advocating sharper instruments and stronger solutions.

In conclusion, this bill is a very welcome criminal justice response to the unlawful dissemination of non-consensual images, and I support these amendments. The distribution of deepfake AI generated images is one part of a disturbing challenge we face in Australia to address harm, particularly against women and children. Cultural change will require many things, but, most certainly, we need to embed early, targeted education. We need to look for creative solutions to minimise harm. We also need to require service providers to detect and remove harmful material, including deepfake images. I commend this bill to the House.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 is an important bill. It will create new criminal offences to ban the sharing of non-consensual deepfake pornography, acting on this kind of digitally created and altered sexually explicit material that is a damaging form of abuse against women and girls and that we know can inflict and, in fact, is inflicting deep harm on victims. Sexually explicit deepfakes created and shared without consent are being used to degrade and dehumanise women and to target women. Of course, in many cases, they are also perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes and contributing to gender based violence. When these deepfakes are shared with others or posted online without the consent of the person depicted, this is, of course, a serious breach of a person's privacy and it has long-lasting harmful impacts on those victims, who never consented to having their image shared.

Our government is really aware of the growing issue of deepfake technology, and we are responding to this issue, particularly through this bill, where it is being used to create false and damaging depictions of real people engaging in sexually explicit acts. These reforms will make clear that those who share sexually explicitly material without consent using technology like AI will be subject to serious criminal penalties, as it should be. The new offences will have a maximum penalty of six years imprisonment for transmitting sexual material without consent and seven years imprisonment for aggravated offences, including where the person created the material. The offences will only apply to sexual material depicting adults, while child abuse material, including AI generated material, will continue to be dealt with under dedicated separate offences in the Criminal Code.

These reforms are a high priority for our government, and they do follow the public commitment we made on 1 May this year to introduce a suite of measures to tackle online harms, particularly those targeting women and girls. I do know that this is an issue that is important to my community. Like so many around Australia, they are concerned by the trend they see of harmful, misogynistic material being shared online and, of course, the devastating consequences that that has for too many women and girls in my community and, again, right around the country. So this bill is one part of a number of measures our government is taking to tackle misogyny online and to make online spaces safer for women and girls. These reforms and others coming through the parliament—other mechanisms as well—are making women and girls safer online.

These changes ensure that the offences apply to both real material, such as unaltered images and recordings, and fake or doctored material that has been created or altered using technology such as deepfakes, so it's bringing those two together. As I said, it does build on other actions being taken by our government, including increasing funding for the eSafety Commissioner, advancing the review of the Online Safety Act a year ahead of schedule, our commitment to address harmful practices such as doxxing and the work we are doing to overhaul the Privacy Act, to give all Australians, particularly women who are experiencing domestic and family violence, greater control over their own personal information.

Here in Australia and across the world, we have seen the rapid growth in deepfakes and sexually explicit deepfakes in recent years. There are some estimates that suggest that 96 per cent of deepfakes online are pornographic in nature. That is an absolutely shocking statistic. ThePalgrave Handbook of Gendered Violence and Technology tells us that, in 2017, the first documented instance of amateur deepfakes appeared, with a Reddit user sharing several images of celebrities' faces manipulated by AI onto the bodies of pornography actors. Only two years later an app using AI tech was released allowing pretty much anyone to create convincing deepfakes of any female, followed by an AI bot becoming available on the Telegram app and making use of that technology in early 2020. In a mere matter of months after this, a review found that almost 105,000 manufactured images of different women had been created and shared using this technology.

In the four years or so since then, the technology has gone even further. It is now at the point, as law enforcement here in Australia have reflected, that, in a six-month period in the last year or so, their experts in identifying deepfake material have gone from being able to identify real or manufactured material to being unable to tell the difference. We have a genuine problem here. We have people, particularly women and girls, being harmed by material that is deeply offensive being created and shared online without their consent.

We do know artificial intelligence is rapidly developing, and I don't want to say that is all a bad thing. There are some positive contributions artificial intelligence can make. But in the context of this bill there are certainly some very harmful contributions that it is currently making, and it is particularly concerning if advances in AI technology deepen existing misogyny in our society, if those technologies are actually used to embed further the inequalities and dangers that exist for women already in our society. Again, that is why laws such as these are so important.

As I said before, this type of attack can happen to anyone. It isn't just celebrities. We have seen celebrities like Taylor Swift being subject to deepfake material that is sexually explicit but, while those have been the high-profile victims, many women here in Australia and around the world have had the same thing happen to them. Our government wants to ensure the people who are creating and sharing these kinds of deepfakes are held accountable and are punished for their actions. There has been existing work on this as well. The eSafety Commissioner has been trying to fill the gap on image based abuse. With several test cases now under their belt, they report a 90 per cent success rate on take-downs. We need of course a multisystem approach here, both penalties and regulations that apply to service providers, to technology platforms and to the generative AI tool companies and that education and social norm piece about the creation of this material as well.

This bill goes to the legislative side and strengthening the legislation framework to deal with this issue. It also builds on work being done in some of our states, where there are specific offences involving image based abuse. Victoria and South Australia have introduced summary offences involving the non-consensual sharing of intimate images in response to the issue of deepfake porn. In my home state of Victoria, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act 2022 made a range of changes, including updating Victoria's definition of consent, criminalising stealthing and introducing new offences involving intimate images that can be used to prosecute users of deepfake pornography.

It is a difficult area of law, but that is certainly no excuse for our not acting. Again, those difficulties have been taken into account as our government has moved forward with this bill and with these changes. We know that deepfake creators may be liable for defamation under Australian law, but the current legal landscape means defamation recourse was designed mainly for the written or spoken word. This bill aims to address the gap we have in existing laws and to meet technology where it is. It will be important in addressing an issue that, if we allow it to continue in the manner in which it has, will continue to do too much harm to too many women across our country.

This bill was developed in consultation with the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and other Commonwealth agencies. I want to highlight that it responds to calls from victims-survivors, and I thank all of those victims-survivors who have done the work with us on this. It responds to calls from community groups and from other members of the public who've contacted me—and, I know, other members in this place—asking us to do more to address the non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit deepfake material. We are clear that without taking action this situation only gets worse. As the Australian Federal Police commissioner said earlier this year at the National Press Club: 'It is likely that we have a tsunami of AI generated abuse material coming at us. We've got to get ahead of that tsunami.' This action will be an important part of getting that work done and getting appropriate laws in place.

The laws are supported by experts in the space—including Dr Asher Flynn, who has publicly written about the laws in Lawyers Weekly. She's the chief investigator and deputy lead at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence and an associate professor of criminology at Monash University. She says the laws:

… will address a major legal gap in Australia, in which the creation of sexualised deepfakes was not illegal anywhere in Australia, except in the state of Victoria. The new laws will see Australia once again leading the way in legal responses to online sexual harm.

The laws may also go some way towards curbing the accessibility of sexualised deepfake technologies.

It is good to have that endorsement from a leader in the field.

It's also important to reflect on that final point there, about curbing the accessibility of sexualised deepfake technologies, and also to reflect on curbing the types of societal norms we are creating, where people think it is okay to create these types of images. It is not okay. It should not be seen as just a normal part of interacting in the world or of interacting with women or of dating women—that you create this type of material. There is a legal response we are putting in place, but I very much hope that, alongside that, there is a norm setting response, where we are very clearly saying that this has no place in Australian society, at both a government level and a community level that we are firmly against this type of behaviour.

The bill amends the Criminal Code to modernise and strengthen offences for the nonconsensual sharing of simulated and real sexual material online. The existing Criminal Code has criminalised nonconsensual sharing of private sexual material since 2018, but those existing offences did not clearly apply to material that has been created or altered using technology. Those offences will be repealed by the amendments and our new offences will apply to nonconsensual sharing of both real material, such as unaltered images and recordings, and fake or doctored material that's been created or altered using technology such as deepfakes. The offences do not cover private communications between consenting adults or interfere with private sexual relationships involving adults. It is a complex area but it is an area that demands action through this legislation and through the multiple pieces of other work our government is doing to keep Australians safe from technology facilitated abuse. This bill bans the sharing of nonconsensual deepfake pornography, taking action on digitally created and altered sexually explicit material that we know is a damaging form of abuse against women and girls—this kind of material that is too often used to degrade and dehumanise others, that targets women and, as I spoke about earlier, that perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes and is part of driving gender based violence.

This is an important bill. It is one of a number of measures our government is doing to try and make online spaces safer, particularly for women and girls. It will hold perpetrators to account for causing harm through the nonconsensual sharing of deepfakes, and it does the work to ensure Australia's criminal offences are keeping pace with new technology. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to strongly support this bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024, but I also say we need to go further in addressing deepfakes. Whilst this bill addresses deepfakes in a very specific context, when it comes to nonconsensual sexual material—and that is horrendous, and I welcome that it will soon be a crime—we need to address the broader question of deepfakes and the use of AI. This is especially so when it comes to advertising, where, for example, a consumer is misled into thinking an image or something presented to them is real when in fact it is AI generated—in fact all forms of non-consensual use of deepfake material using a person's name, image and likeness. I'll come to that later.

In that respect I move:

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

"the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) deepfakes present inherent risks including the spread of misinformation, threats to privacy and security, altering election outcomes and misleading and deceiving voters;

(b) Australians have lost over $8 million to scams linked to online investment trading platforms, often using deepfakes;

(c) the Australian Electoral Commissioner has warned that Australia is not ready for its first artificial intelligence election that is coming within the next 12 months;

(d) deepfakes of Australian politicians have already been used; and

(e) the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2023, introduced by the member for Warringah on 13 November 2023, bans the use of deepfakes in political advertising; and

(2) calls on the Government to take immediate action to extensively ban the creation and transmission of deepfakes without consent of the subject, to address the risks deepfakes present.

In relation to sexual material caught by this bill, we absolutely need to send a strong and unambiguous message that distributing deepfakes of non-consensual sexual material is horrendous and will be a crime. A person's identity is their own and must be protected. Non-consensual sharing of sexual material is a disturbing and damaging form of abuse. Victims face humiliation and mental distress, and it affects their reputation and relationships. They experience intense emotional distress, including anxiety, depression and a profound sense of violation. The psychological and social effects of deepfake pornography are severe, and they can impact on the smallest person, from students—maybe someone who is unsuspecting and fairly anonymous—to someone like Taylor Swift, who we know recently had an incident where deepfakes were made in relation to her image and likeness. We know that they can spread rapidly online, making it nearly impossible for victims to remove the content. This persistent digital footprint can have long-lasting repercussions on their personal and professional lives, impacting their relationships, career prospects and mental health. This bill is crucial for safeguarding the dignity, privacy and safety of all Australians, particularly women and girls.

While I welcome the bill, the government is well behind other jurisdictions when it comes to grappling with the broader issues that deepfakes present. As we enter this era of AI technology, deepfake pornography has become an increasingly prevalent issue. Manipulation of images or videos has been an issue for some time, but advances in technology over recent years have made it far easier to produce this sort of fake content. It's so realistic that it's indistinguishable to the naked eye. What once required significant time, skill and resources can now be done instantaneously, with minimal effort or skill required. Advances in AI have taken this even further, allowing rapid generation of content that is extremely realistic and incredibly difficult to identify as being fake. This form of online abuse involves using artificial images to create fake videos or images that depict individuals in sexually explicit scenarios without their consent. And the statistics are quite shocking: 96 per cent of all deepfake videos online are pornographic; 99 per cent of deepfake pornography targets women; and there was a 2,000 per cent rise in 2023 in the number of websites generating non-consensual sexual material using AI—a 2,000 per cent rise!

We need to go further: not only should deepfakes of this nature be banned but we need to think about where deepfakes are using and usurping another person's name, identity or likeness without their consent. That's why this amendment is important—for the government to be on notice that it must do more to look at the broader picture of deepfakes, across all the different ways in which they're used.

Let's consider the broader impact in relation to this bill. A 2024 Australian study found that more than 52 per cent of boys and 32 per cent of girls had reported viewing pornography by the age of 14. For most parents, that's quite shocking, because it's now of a completely different nature. This isn't about the magazines and things from previous eras; it's of a wholly different nature, and incredibly more confronting. This statistic is alarming because of its implications for young people's perceptions of sex, consent and relationships—what forms a healthy, respectful relationship. Exposure to pornography at a young age, particularly material generated by AI—and, certainly, non-consensual use of images—can distort understanding of healthy and respectful relationships. Further, our current crisis of intimate partner violence, particularly against women, demands strong and immediate preventive action against harmful ways that distort young people's understanding of consent and how to treat their partners respectfully. This bill sends a clear message that technology should not be used as a tool for abuse. With this bill, the Criminal Code is being amended to make it an offence to use a carriage service for non-consensual sexual material.

Governments are failing when it comes to preventing children from having access to AI generated pornography websites. Websites are legal in Australia, with nothing being done to prevent access by children. That is another area that must be addressed. As reported this weekend in the Sydney Morning Herald, more than 100,000 people used the Undress AI website every day. According to the article, users upload a photo and choose from picture settings like 'nude', 'BDSM' or 'sex' and from age options including 'subtract five'—even that concept is quite revolting—which uses AI to make the subject look five years younger. This is a supply chain issue. It's not just the users; it's the application companies, the app stores that allow these apps on their platforms, the search engines and even the credit card companies that facilitate payment and use of these tools.

There are also broader considerations. I know that this bill is framed in the context of the distribution of sexual content without consent and does not directly regulate all deepfakes created using the identity of people without their consent, but the bill before us does not define 'deepfake', nor does it address the many other risks that deepfakes pose, beyond sexual consent. That is why the amendment I've moved is important and why it should be addressed.

The government states that there are a number of workstreams on foot to tackle deepfakes in other parts of government, under the industry department, and further electoral reform, but greater action and ambition are needed. As a former professional athlete, I know from experience that the one thing you have to attract sponsors and earn a living as an athlete is the sale of your name, image and likeness, and these are clauses you have in your contracts. But what we now see with deepfakes is that that can be usurped, taken over without consent, to great detriment. It's important that we recognise that a person owns their own IP and their consent is required for it to be used or manipulated. That contractual right needs to be recognised, pulled into legislation and applied to all deepfakes created using a person's name, image, likeness or voice without their consent. No deepfakes should be permitted to the extent that they infringe on an individual's right to their own identity.

We are living in an advanced technological and digital age. It has seen immense and very fast progress but also new challenges that demand our attention and that we, as lawmakers, should be addressing. AI is moving faster than any regulator can keep up with, but that's not an excuse. Government needs to get on the front foot. Other countries, including the United States, the European Union, China and the United Kingdom, are acting faster than Australia in combating and regulating against the use of non-consensual deepfakes. Just this month Republican and Democrat senators have co-sponsored a bill to require social media companies to take down deepfakes within two days of them being reported. The European Union has passed the world's first comprehensive AI law, including a requirement for deepfakes to contain a watermark to inform users that they are fake images. Put yourself in the seat of a consumer that sees advertising: it might look unrealistic, but without a watermark, for example, as legislated by the European Union, how would a person know what is real and what is fake? I very much urge the government to consider the European Union legislation on the use of watermarks to inform viewers that what they are looking at is an AI generated deepfake, not a real image.

The stakes are high, and the road map for implementing further steps needs to be considered by the government. There are always implications with technological advancements. Sometimes they are for good and sometimes they are deeply concerning. It's imperative that we recognise the inherent risks of deepfakes, including the spread of misinformation—again, talking about consumers not being aware that they are deepfakes; threats to privacy and security; the altering of election outcomes; and the misleading and deceiving of voters. I've been a long-term advocate for protecting voters from misinformation and disinformation, and I've introduced a private member's bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2023, which bans the use of deepfakes in political advertising.

The integrity of our electoral process and campaigning is also threatened, alongside the outcomes of Australians' democratic right to choose government and elect their representative. The Australian Electoral Commission has said it doesn't have the tools to detect or deter AI generated misinformation at the upcoming federal election and that Australia is not ready for its first AI election. That is concerning, yet we still haven't seen action from the government, despite a commitment to do so, to either debate the voter protections bill that I have tabled or introduce its own legislation to ensure there is no misinformation or deceptive and misleading political advertising.

We have seen huge amounts of misinformation and disinformation. Often it is identifiable as being misinformation and disinformation but at least from a source that doesn't look like people you trust. It is used not only for elections. We are seeing huge losses for individuals and corporations as a result of scams. Scams often use deepfakes. Only a few years ago, the biggest scams a company faced were false invoices; now it is deepfakes. British engineering firm Arup lost $25 million earlier this year when a deepfake video of company executives was used to convince an employee to transfer money after they took a video call, as others seen in the call sounded and looked like colleagues he recognised.

In March this year, the ACCC reported that last year Australians lost some $800 million to online investment trading platform trading scams, and, only last week, the Channel 7's YouTube channel was packed and branded with fake Tesla content to promote a cryptocurrency scheme. The National Anti-Scam Centre is warning consumers that they need to be much more aware of fake news articles and deepfake videos of public figures that endorse and link to online investment trading platform scams, particularly on social media, especially the ones using Hollywood actors, high-profile people. They are using deepfakes of these people to then try and scam people, especially when it comes to financial scams.

In Australia, deepfakes of politicians, including senior federal government ministers, are being used to promote these fake financial schemes as well. So I welcome the work being done by the government, including their interim response to the safe and responsible AI consultation, and the establishment of the artificial intelligence experts group. I also acknowledge the work done by the Australian Human Rights Commission on adopting AI in Australia, which calls on the government to adopt watermarking as a priority.

It must also be highlighted the risks that AI presents to embedding past biases, inequalities, including gender and race, in up to 44 per cent of AI models. It is embedded in those AI models this idea of the norm generally being a white Caucasian male. For example, doctors are always considered men, nurses are always described as women, and poor people as people of colour. That is what happens in those AI models. It is an issue that has been highlighted not only by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner but the United Nations and other jurisdictions.

I fully support an extensive ban on deepfakes without consent and I fully support this bill as a first step in creating a safer online environment for all Australians, particularly women. We need further, faster action from the government on a number of fronts with AI, so I urge them to act.

Let us not forget the need for education and awareness. We need to make sure young people are aware of the danger and legal ramifications of creating and sharing deepfake content that will come as a result of this legislation and that implementation of this bill is accompanied by robust supports for victims, offering psychological, legal and social assistance. I commend the bill to the House but I also urge the government take note of the amendment moved.

Is the amendment seconded?

Yes, and I reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024. The growing issue of AI deepfake technology being used to create false depictions of real people is causing stress and anxiety across the country. But I guess the most important thing is to identify exactly what we are talking about when it comes to a deepfake. Deepfakes are images, videos or sound files—often generated using artificial intelligence—of a real person that have been edited to create a realistic but false depiction of that person doing or saying something they did not actually do or say. Deepfakes can create entirely new content or manipulate existing content using a large number of photos or recordings of a person. The risks of abuse are growing as the tools to create deepfakes become incredibly accessible.

Celebrities and politicians globally have been victims of fake images and videos for many years—some of it has been for comedic purposes but a lot of it is more sinister. We've heard from previous speakers about the prevalence of sexually explicit deepfakes running to 90 per cent or so. Disturbingly, as the rate of technology in AI gathers so quickly, those tools are now readily available. You can just download the app from the app store, and you can be making deepfakes. They are readily available for anyone to make a fake, simply by uploading profile pictures of someone from a social media account. The more photos that you have of a real person, the more realistic that deepfake can become because the technology can read that image so much more.

It's important to note that the legislation before the House today deals explicitly with adults, not children. But it is young people in particular, of course, who are using social media, and they are—I hate to say it—naturals at using new technology. It comes very easily to them to use this sort of technology, and young people in particular are becoming both perpetrator and victim. Far too often, girls are being targeted and, worryingly, by boys they know.

In the past month alone, we've seen reports of a very well-known school north-west of Melbourne whose students were targeted with fake nude images circulating online. The principal said that about 50 girls from the school had been targeted. He said that it appeared the images of their faces were taken from social media sites—innocently placed photos on a social media site, maybe in a sports team or celebrating something with their family—before those photos were downloaded and then manipulated to make what this principal described as 'obscene photographs'. In May, a boy was expelled from another college in Melbourne's south-east after creating fake sexual images of a female teacher which were circulated around the school.

Digitally created and altered sexually explicit material is a very damaging form of abuse against women and girls, in particular, that can inflict deep and lasting harm. I have a message to any young men out there. As I said, this legislation targets adults and the depiction of adults, not children, but it doesn't take long for a 16-year-old boy to become a 17-year-old and then an 18-year-old adult. I have a message to the young men of this country. It's not funny. It's not a lark. It's not youthful, innocent high jinks on the way to adulthood. It's abuse. It's disrespectful. And now it's a crime.

Deepfakes are emotionally harmful and can be and are being used in blackmail sextortion scams. Last September, the social media analytics firm Graphika recorded a 2,000 per cent increase in the number of website links offering deepfake tools. It's a popular technology. I can understand the allure of it—to download photos of somebody you know and make a deepfake. People who enjoy tech enjoy this sort of thing. As I said, some of it has been innocent. I think there has been a popular one on TikTok, or something like that, of a guy pretending to be Tom Cruise. He just spends all of his time running through the videos like Tom Cruise runs. It's clearly a deepfake; it's clearly not Tom Cruise. We're not fooled into thinking that Tom Cruise is running around the streets. But that's a very different proposition to what is before the House today, which is about the sexual deepfakes causing harm to people.

Index of Biodiversity Surveys for Assessments data from across the UK, New Zealand and Australia in 2021 revealed some disturbing facts. Thirteen per cent of respondents in Australia aged between 16 and 84 have been victims in one or more ways, including through distribution or the threat of distribution. There are twice as many LGBTIQ victims as there are straight victims. Indigenous people or people from minority ethnic groups are more likely to be victims, and people with disabilities are 3½ times more likely to be victims.

The Albanese government is creating new criminal offences to ban the non-consensual sharing of deepfake pornography, and this legislation comes not before time. It's a difficult area. The fact is this technology is moving very, very quickly, and it's difficult for parliaments to keep up. But we're having a red-hot crack at this. It's so important. These reforms will make clear that those who share sexually explicit material without consent using technology like artificial intelligence will be subject to serious criminal penalties. Let me repeat that: it's not just the people who create this stuff who are in the firing line; it's also the people who share it. If you see it and you think, 'Oh, I'll send that on to a mate,' or 'I'll put it on my site or send it to somebody,' as soon as you hit 'send', you are committing a criminal offence and you are liable for time in prison.

The new offences carry a maximum penalty of six years imprisonment for transmitting sexual material without consent and seven years imprisonment for aggravated offences, including where the person created the material. If you're a 20-year-old bloke sitting around making this stuff thinking it's funny and you share it your mates, then you're up for 13 years, and your mates who share it are up for six years. That's how important this is. That's how serious it is. This is criminal behaviour.

These amendments are high-priority reforms following the Albanese government's public commitment on 1 May this year to introduce a suite of measures to tackle online harms, particularly those targeting women and young girls. This bill will amend the Criminal Code 1995 to modernise and strengthen offences targeting the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit material online. It includes material that's been created or altered using technology such as deepfakes. Aggravated offences will build on this new underlying offence where the person was responsible for the creation or alteration of the sexual material transmitted. Sexually explicit deepfakes created and shared without consent are used to degrade and dehumanise others, target women, perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and drive gender based violence. When shared or posted online without the consent of the person depicted, it is a serious breach of a person's privacy and can have long-lasting harmful impacts on victims, and it will become a criminal offence once it passes the House and the parliament. The Criminal Code currently criminalises the sharing of private sexual material online, but the definition of 'private sexual material' is potentially limiting. That's how fast technology is moving. It doesn't explicitly extend to artificially generated material such as deepfakes. That's why this bill removes any argument.

The bill proposes to repeal the existing offence relating to private sexual material and replace it with a new offence that applies where a person transmits material using a carriage service, the material depicts a person who is or appears to be 18 years of age or older, the material depicts or appears to depict certain poses or body parts of a sexual nature and the person knows the person depicted does not consent to the transmission of the material or is reckless as to whether the depicted person consents. It's important to note that it's not just private people who are covered by this; it also covers well-known celebrities, such as the one who has been noted here tonight who has been a victim to some of this. If someone shares that image, thinking, 'Look at this; this is funny,' even if they know it's only pretending to be so and so but they still send it, they've got no reasonable basis to say that the person has consented to them sending it and they've still committed a criminal act. People need to understand how serious this is. If someone is sharing images or videos, deepfakes, of celebrities, politicians or people in the public eye, that's also captured in this legislation; it's not just for private citizens.

The bill also introduces two aggravated offences which apply increased penalties to the offence. This is where, before the commission of the underlying offence, three or more civil penalty orders are made against the person for contraventions of relevant provisions of the Online Safety Act 2021 and the person is responsible for the creation or alteration of the sexual material transmitted. These amendments are essential to ensure that offences can apply to both 'real' material, such as unaltered images and recordings, and fake or doctored material that has been created or altered by using technology, such as deepfakes. The new offences will not cover private communications between consenting adults or interfere with private adult relationships. The government has no business being in consenting adults' bedrooms. What people want to do as consulting adults is up to them. As long as there's consent, that's fine, but of course it's up to the people in that relationship to make sure that there absolutely is consent and not coercion.

The bill sets out specific defences to the transmission of sexual material without consent to ensure that the offence is targeted and proportionate and does not overly criminalise the sharing of adult pornography for legitimate purposes. The new offences will apply only to material depicting, or appearing to depict, adults. The reason for this is that the Criminal Code already criminalises the use of carriage services for child abuse material, including child abuse material generated by artificial intelligence.

These false altered images and videos cause irreversible emotional, financial and reputational harm. They're a real invasion of somebody's sense of self. Unfortunately, it is women who are vastly and disproportionately impacted by this. Our government wants to make it clear to the creators and sharers of these images that making and sharing this material is immoral and often misogynistic and that if it is done without consent it is always a crime. I commend this bill to the House.

It's my privilege to rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024. I've been working in this field to try to protect children online ever since about 2016, I think it was. I hadn't been in this building long when a young girl took her life. Her name was Dolly Everett. The bullying that she had been exposed to over a course of months or years really hit a nerve with me, and I thought, 'There's got to be a better way.' So I had a meeting with the DIGI down in Sydney. The Digital Industry Group is a lobby group made up of the tech platforms—Google, Apple, Meta and all of the usual suspects, the social media platforms, that you would expect. I asked them what they were doing to protect young people online, to ensure that we didn't see a repeat of Dolly Everett's very sad death.

I walked away from that meeting thinking that I had just taken part in a meeting with big tobacco. There was no problem. Everything was good. Social media platforms and tech companies were a force for good. There was no problem to see. It was almost like being told that smoking was good for me. I went away from that meeting feeling angry and upset that really no lessons were being learnt. Fast forward eight years, and I found myself on the social media committee, which is sitting at the moment, holding hearings. Last Friday, the committee had before us Meta executives. We had Snapchat and TikTok. They have learnt nothing over the last eight years. You will have heard the chief of worldwide safety for Meta say in that public hearing, in response to a number of questions that I asked her, that she did not acknowledge that social media was causing harm to our young people. That, of course, has been treated with the disdain that it deserves.

A lot of people have spoken out. A lot of families have spoken out about the harm that is being caused by social media and social platforms. I read out a history or a submission from a mother, Emma Mason, who talked about her daughter, Tilly Rosewarne, who was just 15 when she took her own life. Tilly was just 15 years old. She'd been subjected to horrendous bullying at school. She'd made 11 previous attempts on her life as a result of that horrendous bullying. A part of that bullying process was the posting on Snapchat of a photo of a nude girl with Tilly's head superimposed on top of it. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for Tilly. Emma Mason provided that submission to the committee about the agony and the pain that that family went through when Tilly took her own life.

That evil is happening in every school, in every town and in every city in this country, where young people are being subjected to the most horrendous bullying, where young people are being subjected to revenge porn and where young people are being subjected to a degree of fraud and coercion to part with money to try and make this all go away. These things are now being done by criminal syndicates that are preying on young people, asking them to take comprising photographs of themselves and then threatening that, if those young people don't pay a sum of money, the criminals will distribute those photographs to their parents and everybody on their contact list. A couple of weeks ago, I had Emma Mason and a number of parents come and see me in my parliamentary office. Each had a story of how they had lost a child to the sort of stuff this bill seeks to remedy.

This bill serves a good purpose. But I am a little concerned—I don't want to make this a political speech, because this is too important for politics—as to the motivation for this bill. I don't understand why, effectively, the regime currently in place, with what is happening now, is not good enough or how what is being proposed by this bill will in some way improve what we've already got. I think what parents and in fact the person that is the victim in all of this want the most is not so much a criminal trial; they want these images taken down, and they want them taken down yesterday. Under current laws put in place by the coalition, the eSafety Commissioner already has the power to direct those images to be taken down, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to understand how what is being proposed is going to be an improvement on what is currently the law of the land today.

We can't have this debate and discussion about these issues unless we look at broader issues such as the impact of online pornography on young people. In 2020 I led an inquiry as the chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, which ultimately recommended age verification to prevent young people from accessing porn online. This is an eminently sensible concept. We know without a shadow of a doubt that there is a direct correlation between the viewing of hardcore pornography online by young people and domestic violence. The committee I was on heard story after story of the lives of young men and women being impacted by the viewing of hardcore, violent, misogynistic pornography. This is not the pornography of Playboy and Penthouse of yesteryear; this is hardcore, violent pornography, degrading of women, and young people are accessing this porn without any impediment.

All they've got to do is go onto a porn website and tick a box saying they're over 18. That is not good enough. If the people in this House believe young people should be protected, if the members of this House believe the online world should replicate the real world, you can't access porn in the real world until you turn 18, yet online all you've got to do is tick a box saying, 'I'm over 18.' That is not good enough. That's why we recommended that we introduce age verification for both online pornography and online gambling. I wouldn't have thought this was a terribly controversial view, and yet we still don't have it. This recommendation was made in 2000. In November last year the shadow communications minister stood at the dispatch box and introduced a private member's bill to introduce age verification for online photography, for online gambling and for social media. What did those members opposite in the government do? They refused to support it. They refused to support the protection of our kids by introducing age verification. That saddens me immensely.

Then, about a month ago, the Prime Minister had this 'come to Jesus' moment, this 'road to Damascus' moment, where he stood up in question time and said: 'Hey, guess what? We're going to introduce age verification for social media. We'll make it 16.' That is exactly what we tried to do seven months ago, and we were blocked. Why? Why are we putting the lives of our kids, the wellbeing of our kids, at risk? The communications minister said: 'We don't want to introduce age verification for online pornography. We want to let the porn companies, big porn, police themselves with a self-regulating code of conduct.' That's like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. Only because parents around this country, supported by News Corp newspapers, started a campaign to introduce age verification for social media and online porn, only because parents around the country were signing petitions and writing to their members of parliament and making their voices heard, did this Prime Minister finally show some leadership and support the welfare of kids. I say that is not good enough. It's time for the Prime Minister to show some leadership in the protection of our kids and introduce age verification for online porn, gambling and social media, at a minimum of 16 for social media. (Time expired)

This bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024, will ban the non-consensual sharing of deepfake pornography, and it is essential because of a consequence of the time and the nature of technology in the era we live in and the acceleration of that technology. The new law will make it a criminal offence to share deepfake porn of someone without their consent. It seems bizarrely unnecessary that such a law would be needed if any common decency applied, but here we are.

Digitally created or altered sexually explicit material is a damaging form of abuse. It's most often used against women and girls, but it can be weaponised against anyone. The explosion and proliferation of artificial intelligence technology has made this bill urgent. It is a high-priority reform area for the government and is part of a suite of reforms to tackle online harms. I'm glad to see more urgent action, and I would like to see more urgent action, of course. But for all the many benefits of technology there are many negatives as well—scams, deepfakes, social media. I commend the government on the establishment of the social media committee. There are broad ideas and many ideas; we just heard some. But we have to get some societal consensus, and ideally some consensus across the parliament, on exactly what needs to be done. I know many members are passionate about it. The previous speaker is a friend of mine, but I think we need to be careful, in our passion, not to cast aspersions on each other's motives. Every member of this place wants to see children protected, but we need, in regulating and legislating, to make sure that things are practical, are workable and will actually make a difference to the problem. I may continue my remarks with another tie!

Debate interrupted.

During the winter recess we will, as parliamentarians, go back to our electorates. It will be cold. Some of us may work, some of us may do other things, but, all the while, we should think about and reflect upon what will be happening in Kosciuszko National Park, because what will be happening there, unfortunately, is the continued aerial culling of our beautiful brumbies. Horses will be shot from out of helicopters, up to a dozen or 15 times, and mares with foals at foot will be left to bleed out. In this day and age, when we talk about animal cruelty and animal welfare, it just doesn't add up. It doesn't stack up.

Tomorrow, in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Sydney, the Snowy Mountains Bush Users Group are taking on the New South Wales Minister for the Environment, Penny Sharpe. Three days have been set aside for a hearing to potentially determine the fate of the brumbies this winter. Last Thursday, when parliament had retired for the week, I was on a Zoom meeting with no less than Tom Burlinson. He is an Australian legend. He starred of course in Phar Lap and he starred in the movie The Man from Snowy River in 1982. It had one of the best soundtracks. We all remember the theme. You know the soundtrack. We all loved the soundtrack, and so many of the wonderful songs evoked stirring memories of brumbies going down the mountainside, being rounded up and being rehomed, being used, being productive in a worthwhile way.

While I was driving home from Sydney last Saturday, the ABC were playing the best soundtracks and TheMan from Snowy River was in the top 100. It should have been too because that movie is so good. Tom Burlinson is such a great actor. It not only had the famous Kirk Douglas but also had local actors like Jack Thompson and Lorraine Bayly. It also had Sigrid Thornton. We all remember the movie and how we cheered and admired those beautiful brumbies, those beasts of the wilderness. But what are we doing 42 years on? We're shooting them in the name of the environment, and it doesn't add up. It's so cruel.

Some of those brumbies have the blood of Glenmarkie in them. Glenmarkie was an English import, a thoroughbred, that sired the 1892 Melbourne Cup winner. When James Sutherland at Lockhart's Creek couldn't afford his horses he set them loose up near Towong way, up in the high country, near Corryong. You know, they also supported us in our time of need in World War I as walers.

The Invasive Species Council, indeed the RSPCA, indeed the National Parks and Wildlife Service—some of what has been claimed by those organisations and others about the numbers of brumbies running wild in Kosciuszko and the high country is fake. They have used those numbers to excuse what they're doing. The park has now been locked off, and the cruelty can't be seen by those locals, because they're not allowed in. But you take the viewpoints of such people as Dr Brenda Laurence from Millmerran in Queensland. She's a registered veterinary surgeon. She believes what's happening in Kosciuszko and elsewhere is extremely inhumane. Horses are being shot many times. Many are shot in the chest to drown in blood, some even in the abdomen.

I know it sounds gross, and some might say this is not the place to say this, but if not here then where? Brumbies need our protection; they don't deserve this. As long as I'm in this place, I will stand and I will fight for them, because they need someone to protect them. They are voiceless and they need somebody to be their voice. I'm just disappointed that there aren't more people in the New South Wales government who would stand and do the same for our beautiful brumbies, an Australian iconic heritage.

The Nazis infamously instigated the burning of books at universities all over Germany in May 1933. It was part of the drive to merge German cultural life with Nazi aims and beliefs. It was extreme, although not in comparison to the atrocities that were to come, and an example of the exercise of control over free thought and ideas. However, as Ray Bradbury said:

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.

That is precisely what Cumberland City Council in Sydney tried to do in May when they banned the book Same Sex Parents by Holly Duhig from eight of its libraries. Such actions are unacceptable in Australia in 2024.

Historically, we have form in Australia when it comes to censoring books. From the 1920s onwards, books were often confiscated by customs officials who didn't like the look of the dust jacket. Many books which are now considered classics met this fate, such as Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover. Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho even received a ban in the early 1990s. Thankfully, the days of customs officials taking books out of people's bags are long over, but there is a worrying and increasing trend of removing books from library shelves or seeking to have them banned. Often the books on the banning hit list are by queer or non-white authors, people from marginalised backgrounds.

Individuals in marginalised groups are known to experience more mental challenges and have lower levels of wellbeing. By now I think we all understand the importance of wellbeing and how important it is for people to flourish in education, work and relationships. Feeling seen and understood positively affects wellbeing. But banning books has the opposite effect. Banning books takes away the voices of the authors; it tells them and their prospective readers that their experiences do not matter. One queer author talked about the negative effect on young people of banning books, 'I worry about the kids who are in these emotionally precarious positions, looking at the adults around them who want to treat them like they don't exist.' Another author says: 'Writing queer stories for children and teens is not about fame and fortune; it's about providing hope. It's about showing them that they're good, wonderful, lovable, natural just the way they are.'

It is worrying that book banning is a trend that has been increasing in the United States, where most of the 4,349 books banned in the second half of last year were books written by or about queer or non-white people. The most banned book in the United States is the graphic novel, Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. It's shameful that this same book is the subject of a forthcoming decision in the Federal Court of Australia after an attempt to ban it from libraries in Logan.

Banning books is another aspect of the culture wars, and its battlefields are often our local libraries. Libraries are open to everyone and offer access to ideas, learning and imagination. As far as I understand it, it's not compulsory to take a book from a library. In our society, and in 2024, these should not be considered as dangerous concepts. The actions of those people seeking to ban books is also extremely concerning. The CEO of the Australian Library and Information Association describes people going into libraries, grabbing books off the shelves, reading them out loud and saying, 'These shouldn't be here!' They call librarians horrible names and threaten doxxing and physical violence. In many cases, these instances are part of coordinated campaigns—small battles in larger culture wars. They maybe small battles but they're dangerous attacks on social cohesion. They aim to isolate groups of people and divide communities.

Returning to Sydney: it was heartening that two weeks after Cumberland's official announcement of the ban, they reversed the decision to ban Holly Duhig's book. The public outcry and the 42,000 people who signed a petition against the ban no doubt clarified the council's thinking. At our best, society is kind, cohesive and inclusive—as we heard from the Governor-General today. More kindness in our society should always be something we strive towards. We should value and respect each other's experiences. This is what we should all be striving for. After all, there is something we can learn from each other, and picking up a book is a good way to start.

As the Minister for the Arts said, banning books takes things in the opposite direction and serves no-one. If we know of children who are having some challenges at school and if they can find that voice that speaks to them, whether it be in something as radical as To Kill a Mocking Bird or The Catcher in the Rye or books like that—books that have been banned in the US—why not have that helping hand offered from a book shelf or from a librarian selecting something for a kid? Banning books should not be a part of Australia in 2024.

The infrastructure and transport budget has taken a massive hit thanks to the Albanese Labor government, and Western Sydney has lost out as well. The coalition found the infrastructure minister's 90-day review caused around $2.5 billion of infrastructure funding to be on the chopping block.

In May this year, the minister finally, after much time and many midnight press releases, made it to Western Sydney to announce fake new funding and money for projects at $1.9 billion. What the Albanese Labor government have packaged as 'new funding' is actually just relocated money to the same commitments that they had previously made.

In their first budget, the Labor government had actually committed to the funding and the projects that we had in the coalition government. Then, the minister decided that a 90-day review was required. Well, it was a lot more than 90 days, as we know, and those 90 days have caused delays with these infrastructure projects. The minister then started her cuts by taking away federal funding from the M7-M12 interchange, a vital new link to Western Sydney International Airport. But then it gets better: she took away funding after construction had actually commenced. Work was being done! Her Labor colleagues in the New South Wales government were absolutely gobsmacked by this.

In my own Western Sydney electorate of Lindsay, the minister more than halved funding for the Mulgoa Road stage 2 upgrade. So I have some questions for the minister that my community would like answered. Where has the $117.5 million from the Commonwealth for the Mulgoa stage 2 project gone? She put some of the money back, but she didn't put all of it back, and it's not being covered by the New South Wales government. Does that mean we're going to get half of the upgrade? Did the New South Wales government advocate for only partial funding, or did the minister hoodwink her Labor colleagues, like she did the Western Sydney community? From what can be seen in the New South Wales government's Western Sydney budget document, it's $230 million for Mulgoa Road stage 2. That was roughly what was committed to originally. So it's very odd that the project is continuing as is despite almost a quarter of the money missing. Unless the scope of the project changes, as I said, we'll get half a road. And, if that's the case, the Albanese government must front up to the people of Penrith and tell us what's going on. This is a vital project for my community, and people are getting really tired of the on-again off-again relationship the Albanese Labor government's having with us.

The Great Western Highway is another project in Western Sydney. It had $2 billion in funding ripped away from the new link going through the Blue Mountains to create easy accessibility for the central west to Western Sydney. Labor promised the people of Werrington, Cambridge Gardens and Cambridge Park in my community that, if they won government, they would fast-track the Dunheved Road Upgrade. We have now learnt that, once the tendering process completes, the project won't start construction until next year, and it will be two years behind schedule—from an early 2023 start to 2025. Why did the Labor Party make a commitment to fast-track a project that Penrith City Council said it could not fast-track? They made this promise in the election to buy votes.

The minister commissioned a Western Sydney transport infrastructure panel. It reported to the minister in April 2023. She didn't release the report until November 2023. Why didn't the minister release the report before the budget? Is it because she did not want to commit to implementing the recommendations of the expert panel? It seems like the answer is yes. The planning funding was critical to reviewing the need for upgrades to so many old semi-rural roads across Lindsay and across other Western Sydney electorates. The panel recommended that the original $15 million allocated be increased to $35 million because the planning project was high priority. Yet the minister decided to cut the funding altogether. Why didn't she listen to the expert panel on Western Sydney? It is so important to have these roads in place for the opening of the airport.

We have a lot of issues going on in Western Sydney, particularly because of these infrastructure cuts by the minister, and it's just not good enough. We need a government that takes Western Sydney seriously and wants to invest in our communities for the future.

The decision by the Albanese government that live sheep exports will end on 1 May 2028 will be widely welcomed by many people who for years have campaigned to end live sheep exports. Some would have preferred the end date to be sooner. The reality, however, is that a phase-out period is needed so that contractual obligations can be met and affected sheep farmers and other industry sectors can make the necessary adjustments. That was the recommendation of the independent panel, led by Philip Glyde, that the Albanese government established to ensure a smooth transition out of live sheep exports.

The fact is that the live sheep export industry has been in decline for years. For 2022-23, the latest figures available, live exports represented just $77 million of the $8 billion Australian sheep industry, of which $4.5 billion was from the export of sheepmeat. Labor made it clear in both the 2019 and 2022 federal elections that, if elected, live sheep exports would end. The end date therefore comes after considerable advance notice—almost a decade—to exporters, sheep farmers and other industry participants. To assist the industry with a phase-out, an industry transition support package of $107 million over five years has been made available by the government.

Live sheep exports have been dogged by revelations of serious cruelty and sheep deaths for decades, with a Senate inquiry dating back four decades exposing the cruelty of this trade. Since then, there have been several inquiries and suspensions of the trade, including by the Howard government in 2004, when exports to Saudi Arabia were suspended over the Cormo Express debacle. In more recent years, both the Moss and McHugh inquiries shone an independent spotlight on the trade and imposed more stringent oversight. That oversight has improved the export conditions, and the Labor-introduced Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, otherwise referred to as ESCAS, has considerably helped.

We saw only earlier this year with the MV Bahijah crisis, where thousands of sheep were left in limbo for weeks, that, even with the world's best regulatory system, the safety of the sheep could not be assured once the sheep left Australia. The justification that live sheep are exported because receiving countries do not have adequate refrigeration is no longer credible. That may have been the case decades ago, but not today. The more likely driver of live exports is that live exports enable the slaughter to take place in cheaper-to-run marketplaces, and, even more likely, the sheep are sold to individual families, to be killed under customary but cruel cultural practices, where there are no abattoir costs incurred at all. The end of live sheep exports will ensure that all sheep are killed here in Australia, under Australian standards, including by halal certified abattoirs, thereby adding to Australian industry opportunities and Australian jobs.

New Zealand phased out live sheep exports nearly two decades ago, and the UK and EU countries are considering doing the same. In my own state of South Australia I understand that the only live sheep exports over recent years have been by air transport, with sea transport from South Australia to the Middle East having been almost entirely phased out. Even in Western Australia, where most of the live sheep export trade originates, Western Australian boxed meat exports, which account for around $648 million, are now worth eight times the live sheep trade.

Over the years, I have attended live sheep export rallies, met with numerous animal welfare leaders and spoken with countless people who have been both for and against live sheep exports. The overwhelming sentiment has been that live sheep exports should end, that the live export industry is cruel and that there are real alternatives for sheep farmers. I thank those passionate animal welfare advocates who have been campaigning to end the live sheep export trade for years. Their voices have been heard by the Albanese Labor government, and I commend them for all of their advocacy. Of course, 1 May 2028 will come after the next election, and the end of the live sheep export trade legislation was not supported by the coalition. Only a Labor government has taken animal welfare standards seriously. It was Labor that introduced the ESCAS standards, and only a Labor government will phase out live sheep exports.

Two weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of visiting the Clontarf Academy at Coodanup College in Mandurah, right in the heart of my electorate of Canning. It was a chilly morning, but I was greeted with very warm smiles from the boys of Clontarf. They gave me a firm handshake and looked me in the eye, and it was a real pleasure to spend the morning with them. From the top, I'd like to thank Mr Nick Jenkins, the partnerships manager for Clontarf, who invited me to go and see the Clontarf Academy; Mr Shawn Gillies, who is the academy's director and runs the year 12 program; Mr Pierce Dawson, the operations officer for years 7 and 11; Mr Kevin Dalgetty, the operations officer for years nine and 10; and Mr Thomas Bowey, the operations officer for year 8.

What is the Clontarf Foundation? The Clontarf Foundation is designed to provide a safety net for young Indigenous boys who often fall through the cracks of normal school programs. It's a national program. There are 155 academies in Australia. There are 35 academies in Western Australia. In 2024, there are approximately 11,800 students participating in the program. The aim is to have 15,000 boys in the program for 2025. This is a really heartening statistic, and it's why I am a big supporter of Clontarf: 83 per cent of Clontarf alumni are engaged in work a year after completing year 12.

This initiative is about addressing the needs and challenges faced by Indigenous boys, ensuring that they get opportunities and support so that they can succeed both academically and personally. Clontarf aims to set up these kids so that they can succeed in life—to instil confidence in them and to show them the power of being consistent in life. It's great to see young, ambitious men at the Clontarf Academy. I saw them grow in interpersonal skills and life skills and realise the importance of hard work. Life is a marathon, not a sprint, and the Clontarf Foundation, through its academies, seeks to instil this in these great young Australians.

Two weeks ago, I arrived. I was greeted, and I went into the kitchen. Those who were good at cooking were making bacon and eggs and baked beans on toast. I was offered a nice coffee. Then I went next door to the gymnasium, and that's where the boys warm up before school. We started with some dodgeball. I almost dislocated my shoulder and managed to get hit by a couple of the balls. Then, we progressed to basketball. It was great to see that community. One of the challenges is the breakdown of the family unit, and Clontarf seeks to replicate the family environment. I really felt at home with those kids, and it was great to be there. We then enjoyed breakfast together.

The thing about the Clontarf Academy is that it builds routine. There is a morning routine. Every morning, the boys are picked up by a bus and taken to the gym where they are given a substantial breakfast. This routine serves a number of purposes. It promotes healthy habits for these young boys, gives them regular exercise, helps them to wake up early and instils discipline. It contributes to their overall wellbeing. It's a great start to the day, and it fills critical gaps. I mentioned the challenge with a lot of families. The program provides essential services that might be lacking at home—that mum and dad won't be able to do or can't do. It makes sure that the boys get to school on time and have a nutritious meal. As we know, it's very hard to study or play sport on an empty stomach, so this is where the Clontarf Academy sets these young guys up for success.

There's consistency across locations. Clontarf is uniform across all the academies throughout Australia, and, because of that, it gives stability and security if these young boys move to different academies. One thing I was really impressed by was something I was shown by two young gentlemen. I want to read their names into the Hansard: David Tumbungu and Rhiley Wilson. They took me through the tracking and incentives. There are boards up in the Clontarf Academy, and there are a number of milestones that they can achieve, including obtaining a driver's licence, getting a Medicare card and getting a job. It was great to see that these two young guys, who had a very consistent attendance record at the Clontarf Academy, had ticked off a lot of the milestones. They had jobs; one of them was working at Chicken Treat. These guys are going places, and I was really inspired by that. The incentives are there so that they attend. If they attend throughout the year then they get a Melbourne trip or a Karratha trip, and that really keeps them going.

To the Clontarf Academy: thanks so much for having me. I really back what you're doing and I'm keen to visit more often.

I rise today to speak on the opportunities the Albanese Labor government is providing to local community groups through the Volunteer Grants program. As the member for McEwen, there is nothing I value more than representing our community, in this place and at home, but what does come close is being able to assist those in our community who spend their valuable time and effort making our towns and suburbs better places to live. The government's volunteer grants support the work of local community organisations by enabling the inclusion of vulnerable people whilst also promoting awareness through increased participation in volunteering.

Grants of between $1,000 and $5,000 have been made available during each round to assist eligible not-for-profit community organisations to support the efforts of the volunteers. Grant funding can assist with a lot of critical things, including small portable equipment purchases, contributions towards the cost of training volunteers, reimbursement of fuel costs for volunteers, and undertaking the background screening checks for those working with vulnerable people.

We all know the value of volunteers. Without these individuals' dedicated and selfless efforts, these community groups would not exist. These grants assist groups to make the role of the volunteer easier but also promote the benefits of volunteering. We also need to acknowledge, though, that the myriad tasks that need to be done often rest on the shoulders of too few in any organisation. There has been a noticeable decrease in volunteering across all manner of groups since COVID, and the community groups are struggling to fill the roles needed to keep the organisations flourishing. These grants go some way to helping address that.

I was lucky enough recently to meet with many volunteer groups in McEwen and congratulate them on being the recipients of funding under the latest round of the grants program. I'm continually inspired by their drive and dedication to contribute to our community. They ask for no recognition and just go quietly about their roles with no fanfare. They quietly ensure that our sports are played, those in need are cared for and our communities are safe and protected. Simply put, they just go and get the job done. Today I would like to acknowledge some of those people and community groups in McEwen and recognise how the Volunteer Grants program is assisting them.

No explanation is needed of the value the Woodend CFA provides to its community. They are everyday heroes who put themselves between our community and danger. It was an honour to meet with former captain and brigade member Mike Dornau recently and congratulate him on a successful grant application to fund new hoses and dividing breech fittings. He explained that this equipment will allow the brigade to utilise longer, lighter and easier-to-manoeuvre hose lines in bushfires, assisting their ability to contain blazes and keep themselves safe.

Anyone that knows me knows that I have a high regard for groups like Love in Action and Freedom Care Inc. These two organisations are ensuring that the most vulnerable members of our community who are doing it the toughest are fed and cared for. Love in Action Wallan provides emergency hampers of essential grocery and household items for those in need. President Sarah Brewer advises that the latest grant funding will provide fuel reimbursement for volunteers and mental health first aid training so volunteers can connect with and assist care recipients who may be struggling. This community group, born of an idea of Jeremy Scrivens, has grown to be one of the most sensational things you'll ever see. The way they work together as a collective, coming together to talk about strength and unity in our community, is second to none. Freedom Care Inc is a food relief agency in Kilmore providing ongoing food assistance for people who are struggling financially. Committee member Debbie Morris explained to me that the grant funding they receive will provide much-needed office and OH&S equipment to assist volunteers to help those most in need.

As Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Men's Sheds, I have seen firsthand the huge benefits that sheds provide across the nation. In fact, the Men's Shed movement has now become one of the most powerful tools in addressing health and wellbeing, helping men to once again become valued and productive members of our society. President Chris Eavis and Secretary/Treasurer Urs Bierdermann welcomed me recently to Diamond Creek Men's Shed and explained how their grant funding will replace an older model table saw with one that will provide members with an easier and, most importantly, safer experience.

In the latest round of volunteer grants, I was able to meet with 18 different community groups on successful funding that totalled over $66,000 for our community. This is money they do not have to spend time fundraising—time that is better spent with the people they serve. These grants not only make the role of the volunteer easier; they allow them to spend more time doing what they do best—caring for our community. I acknowledge all the volunteers in McEwen for their contribution to our community.

House adjourned at 20:00

There has been much debate in this House regarding the cost of living and, in particular, the cost of energy. I've spoken on these matters on so many occasions in this place, relaying the pain, frustration and desperation of those in my electorate who can no longer afford the basics of life such as household heating. There is a mismatch between government statements around electricity becoming cheaper and the reality faced by every Australian household. I am utterly sad that people just can't afford to keep the lights on. When did this become Australia?

Just last week, a constituent forwarded a notice from his energy company advising of yet more price increases. The 65-year-old gentleman is a frugal user of energy but, despite this, the notice forecast his energy costs to rise by $331 per year. This is completely at odds with the government's commitment of reducing electricity bills by $275. A breakdown of the bill finds the supply charge increasing by around 30 per cent and the summer and winter kilowatt hour usage charges increasing by 14 per cent. It is no wonder that a number of South Australian households are forced onto hardship plans due to their inability to pay these energy bills. They've risen by 44 per cent since the last federal election. We now have 127,000 households across the country on hardship plans, with a staggering 19,000 of them in my state of South Australia. In percentage terms, this represents around 14 per cent of the total number of hardship plans, compared to South Australia's population percentage of less than eight per cent.

We have serious and systemic problems in our country, at the moment, and the government is failing us on energy prices and the cost-of-living crisis. The government's energy relief payments are simply inadequate against the tide of ever-increasing prices. Australians shouldn't have to go without heating and cooling in their homes. People are going to bed at 5.30 or six o'clock at night simply because they can't afford to run the heater, and they certainly can't afford to buy wood. Neither should people have to address complex energy contracts after each bill in an endless attempt to find a better deal.

At what point will the government recognise the extent of this problem? How many more families must go into hardship before we look for a solution to this? Families, households and small businesses are all suffering terribly with the runaway increasing prices. I just can't believe that this is the nation that we have become, where people can't afford to turn the lights on, can't afford to keep their families warm. I implore the government to make it a priority to fix this mess today.

When I first got elected, in 2019, I was one of the youngest members in this place. Clearly, politics is ageing me. But I have always sought to try and be a voice in this place for the young people in my electorate. Macnamara is home to many young people. It's a wonderful place, a vibrant place, where people come and enjoy all the fantastic parts of our community. But it is also a place where people come and visit. They come to concerts. They come to festivals. They come to parties. They come to eat. They come to dine.

In February the streets of St Kilda are pumping for Midsumma Festival. The warehouses in Port Melbourne and South Melbourne are often packed every Saturday night. The reality of the situation is that young people sometimes take drugs. Let's be clear: we want our young people to be safe and we want our young people to enjoy themselves and to go home at the end of the night. Last week the Premier of Victoria announced that the Labor government in Victoria will trial pill testing over the summer. As the Premier herself said, this is a common-sense way to save lives. Every year, we see more and more young people being put at risk by taking party drugs without the option to speak to an expert, fact-check what their experience might be and check what's in their pills.

The evidence is clear: pill testing saves lives. This is about harm reduction; it does not increase the risk of illicit drug use. In fact, it does the opposite. Multiple studies around the world, including locally at Monash University, show people often reduce their drug use after receiving the results of their drug checking and having an honest discussion about the results with staff. The evidence has shown that a sizeable proportion of people discard or intend to discard their drugs or use less if they contain unexpected substances. If you have honest conversations with people, they listen. If you give people facts, people make good decisions, especially young people. Young people are smart and want to know the information that is going to assist them. They don't want judgement. They don't want lessons. They want facts. This pill testing will provide just that.

One in 10 people in Macnamara work in the creative sector. It's a wonderful part of our community. This will make the jobs and the industry that we are so proud of in Macnamara safer. In 2019 one of my local councils, the City of Port Phillip, wanted to be the first in Victoria to run pill testing at participating venues in our community. This is something that the community in Macnamara has supported for years. I'm very pleased that the Allan Labor government in Victoria have taken this important step. We don't want to see any young person losing their life for experimenting or for spending time with their friends. Obviously, we want people to be safe, and I support this initiative by the Victorian Labor government to test pills this summer and to save lives.

It's not surprising to read the findings of Sean Brady's report on the Callide Power Station failure in Central Queensland. This report identified the systemic failure of the Queensland Labor government and CS Energy's board and management to oversee and implement the required maintenance procedures to run this facility efficiently. This lack of maintenance contributed to the catastrophic failure in 2021 that saw energy prices increase and almost 500,000 homes and businesses plunge into darkness, which has ultimately cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

Central Queensland has a proud heritage as an energy-producing region, and I'm thankful that none of the workers at the Callide plant were injured that day. Back in July 2022 I said:

Hydrogen is extremely dangerous. It is extremely flammable and has specific qualities that make industrial quantities of hydrogen very difficult to produce, store, transport and use. In 1937 the zeppelin exploded. In 1986 the space shuttle Challenger exploded. In 2011 in Fukushima, Japan, a nuclear reactor plant exploded. More recently and close to home, the Callide C4 coal-fired generator exploded. These are all catastrophic hydrogen explosions.

My claims about the Callide Power Station were questioned by several journalists, but I am right.

However, I would like to draw your attention to Mr Brady's report that has identified that the explosion was caused when Callide's main turbine tripped and the backup battery systems failed to alert workers that the generator was drawing power rather than delivering it. The turbine subsequently exploded, after hydrogen used to cool the turbines leaked. Furthermore, Mr Brady's report identified the severe cost-cutting and bandaid solutions that were implemented by CS Energy and the Labor government. This played a significant role in the incident.

Some of the comments in the report include: 'The metrics focused on by the CS Energy board did not include a focus on the management of process safety. Instead, they were focused on personal injury, plant availability and financial performance. While process safety was discussed in the organisation, it did not result in any meaningful improvement in how major accident risks were managed within the operations. CS Energy sought to use surplus cash reserves for investment in existing and new assets but received a more limited agreement that debt management must be considered equally with portfolio revenue. Shareholder mandates have pushed to extract more from ageing assets, and multiple cost-cutting initiatives have been undertaken.' This was a catastrophic failure, maintained and implemented by Mr Mick de Brenni, the energy minister in Queensland.

Today is a long-awaited 1 July. From today many of our cost-of-living measures come into effect, meaning Australians are going to earn more and keep more of what they earn. From today, Labor is delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, taking $300 off power bills for each household, freezing the cost of PBS medicines, delivering a pay rise for 2.6 million Australians and providing two more weeks of paid parental leave.

Today, the Albanese Labor government is delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. That's 13.6 million hardworking Australians, including 72,000 people in my electorate of Cunningham, and 60,000 of those will be getting a bigger pay packet and paying less tax. Our tax cuts will provide greater relief to low- and middle-income taxpayers. That means that 2.6 million Australians on minimum and award wages, who are also receiving a wage increase today, will now share in the benefits of these tax cuts. Under Scott Morrison's plans, these workers would have received zero tax cuts.

We are providing 98 per cent of young Australian taxpayers with a bigger tax cut under these changes, in addition to cutting $3 billion in student debt and introducing paid prac placements. Childcare workers, nurses, teachers, disability carers and aged-care workers are some of the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of these workers receiving a bigger tax cut from today.

Women contribute significantly to our economy through their hard work, and the Albanese Labor government wants to ensure that they retain a larger portion of their hard earned money. These tax cuts will help women better tackle the everyday challenges and cost-of-living pressures that they face. This will mean that 90 per cent of women taxpayers will be retaining, on average, an additional $707 per year compared with the previously legislated tax cuts.

We are also supporting new parents with an additional two weeks of paid parental leave today, with greater flexibility between caregivers. This brings the total to 22 weeks and builds on our changes that commenced in July last year to give more families access to the payment by widening eligibility on household income.

With every Australian taxpayer receiving a tax cut today, every Australian household will be getting help with their energy bill. We're providing $3.5 billion in energy relief for all Australian households and one million eligible small businesses. From today, more than 10 million households will receive a total rebate of $300 and eligible small businesses will receive $325 on their electricity bills.

Today's measures provide targeted relief for every household, but we know there's more work to do. We will continue working hard every day to relieve pressure on Australian families.

WALLACE () (): Fisher is home to some world-class farmers and primary producers, with agriculture adding over $530 million to the Sunshine Coast economy every year. Yet this week, our farmers will begin to feel the impact of Labor's most recent callous and careless cuts. Starting today, those seeking seasonal work on farms and with primary producers will be forced onto the Workforce Australia platform.

The Harvest Trail Services program is being defunded by this Labor government. This comes despite protests from the sector and after over 25 years of its success in supporting our primary producers. The Harvest trail program has supported backpackers, working holiday-makers and Australian workers, many students, older Australians and those struggling to find a traditional job. And it has worked. So why have Labor axed the program? It cannot be for the $47.3 million in savings over five years. This is all about Labor's vindictiveness and their radical agenda to tax, spend and smooth-talk their way through government.

But, every day, we see that the stark reality of life under this Prime Minister is getting worse. Australians are paying more for less, and regional communities are footing the bill for Labor's budget blowouts at the big end of town. These changes will open the door to on-farm exploitation. They'll cripple farmers in my electorate, like the pineapple farmers and strawberry farms across Beerwah, Coochin Creek and the Glass House Mountains. These are families who've built the Sunshine Coast from the ground up, and Labor will put hardworking Australians and backpackers out of a job, as their cost-of-living crisis wreaks havoc on households right across this country.

Labor have slashed the ag visa. They drove up the price of temporary working visas. They're taxing truckies. They want a new carbon tax for utes. Every day and in every way, it has become clear that this Labor government has it out for Australian farmers.

Every single Australian is being punished under this Labor government. It doesn't matter what stage of life they are in; inflation is impacting upon every part of their life, whether it's at the service station, paying an electricity bill, their rent or their mortgage payments. Mortgage payments have gone up for the average Australian by $24,000 a year after tax. Who can afford this? Who can afford this Labor government for one more day?

It's with a heavy heart that I rise today to remember the life of the beloved pastor Graeme Fitzgerald. Graeme grew up in Panania, near Revesby. As a young man, he was an avid athlete. He played cricket and rugby for his local team and, after leaving school, he became a landscaper. Graeme's love for the outdoors stayed with him his entire life. In 2014 Graeme took over Reach Church in Parramatta from Pastor Gary Dench. Gary had founded the church in 1991 with his partner, Joyce. They met every week at a community hall in Wentworthville. Gary and Joyce, who still attend the church to this day, believed in the transformational power of religion. They were guided by the values of faith and acceptance, and with these values they built the foundations for an active and vibrant faith community.

Graeme worked tirelessly to grow the church in the years that followed. It found strength not just in numbers but in diversity. More than 30 nationalities are represented amongst its 400 members. Reach Church also supports missions in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, India and Africa. Under their Lifelinks program, Reach Church supports people in need across Western Sydney. Every Monday, parishioners deliver groceries and food to refugees, people with disabilities and seniors. Under Graeme, Lifelinks also supported those impacted by the 2019 bushfires and the 2022 floods.

Graeme was well known by those around him for his hard work and dedication to his church and his community. He healed the broken-hearted and he bound up their wounds. Graeme didn't leave his legacy to those around him; he left his legacy within them.

After a battle, Graeme passed on 19 June 2024. He's survived by his wife and fellow pastor, Mandy; and his three children, Jesse, Hannah and Billy.

I rise to pay tribute to two Mallee community members: Jo Martin, from Wimmera Southern Mallee Development, who leads Thrive by Five; and Wendy Gladman, from Loddon Shire, who runs The Parenthood. I met both in Boort recently. These women and their teams are working to resolve Mallee's childcare deserts. Loddon Shire has 300 children on waitlists. Some of them are developmentally vulnerable. This is exacerbated by towns with no formal child care at all.

Beulah's Heather Sherwell is on maternity leave with two young children. Heather says that, when her leave ends, she is 'screwed' and her family may have to relocate to Melbourne. She says:

We're essentially killing small towns … we've got to choose between, does one of us stop working, does a farm lose an essential worker … or whether we just have to pack up and forget about everything we've built.

Dedicated Rainbow community member, 41-year-old Katherine Durant, and her farmer husband, Ben, have two boys under six years. He works seven days a week up to 16 hours a day, leaving Katherine to sole parent. Katherine says:

You just have to look at the faces of the rural women with small children during cropping and harvest. They are doing the best they can and, like me, probably cry every day in frustration. But we do it. We shut up and we do it.'

The lack of child care in Rainbow and Jeparit leaves nurses and teachers unable to return to work.

Child care at Hopetoun closed due to there being no workforce, and the Yarriambiak shire is working hard to find a solution. Buloke shire say the opening of long day care in Charlton has been positive, but Donald and Birchip could offer eight more childcare places if they had trained staff. Sea Lake is already at capacity after opening in February last year, and it too has a waitlist. Cohuna is another Mallee childcare desert, with 34 children on the family-day-care waitlist, and the Victorian government is yet to fund a 99-place early learning centre. Kerang has 45 children waiting for family day care and a further 85 children under three waiting for the long-day-care centre. Gannawarra needs eight educators just to fill existing places. The Albanese Labor government has to step up and help Mallee families access the child care they deserve.

Recently, during Refugee Week, I had the opportunity to attend and speak at the Bendigo Community Health Services Refugee Week event. It was an opportunity to celebrate the amazing contribution that local refugees had made to our community. I'm proud to represent an electorate that is growing in its diversity and becoming home to many people with a refugee background. Our Karen population now numbers over 3,000 and is growing weekly.

The government provides robust support for all of those refugees, ensuring that they have the skills and opportunity to transition to Australia and rebuild their lives with certainty. That commitment continues today to be funded by the SETS Program, the Settlement, Engagement and Transition Support Program. Locally, this funding has been received by two groups in my electorate that continue to deliver a wide variety of SETS programs. Key delivery partners in my electorate include Bendigo Community Health Services, the host of the Refugee Week events, who received just over $1 million in funding in the latest round. Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services have also received just under $500,000 in funding to continue to do the work in this important space.

Many migrants and refugees have made important social and economic contributions throughout our nation's history, particularly in my electorate of Bendigo. A recently released AMES report spoke to the economic contribution that they have made to our community. Whether they arrive young and go on to establish fabulous careers in our health sector or whether they arrive older and fulfill positions in our manufacturing sector, they have made an outstanding contribution, and we thank them for choosing Bendigo and our town.

I do want to acknowledge the role that the City of Greater Bendigo has played in becoming a refugee welcome city. It is hard to believe that a town like Bendigo, with a small refugee community, would take such a step, but that is who they are as a community, reflecting the wishes and the needs of many of us locally.

A special shout-out goes to the many volunteers and community organisations that made a very cold week in Bendigo that little bit warmer by coming together to celebrate Refugee Week. This is another great opportunity to thank refugees for the amazing contribution that they make to our community and for sharing their culture with us. We are that much stronger by them sharing their culture. We are that much stronger by celebrating our diversity.

I rise today to speak about some of the issues affecting my local community in Hughes. Firstly, nestled down on the banks of the Woronora River, known by the 2,200 locals down here as 'the Wonnie', and completely ringed by bushland is the suburb or village better known as Woronora. The community hub there is the Woronora RSL club. But this club is currently under threat of closure. I met with the board over the weekend and have been contacted by many Woronora residents. The RSL club is an integral part of our local community, hosting Anzac Day and Remembrance Day services. It is a venue for community meetings and an emergency evacuation point, and it also hosts various groups including our local ukulele group. It is hoped that this important venue can continue to operate into the future. I've said to the Woronora locals and the club directors, 'I'll continue to advocate for this club to save this important local icon.'

As we start this new financial year, Labor is promising life will be easier. I've visited many of my local community organisations recently, such as Vinnies at Sutherland. Never has it been so tough within our community. Vinnies and other charities are inundated with requests for help, food, grocery vouchers, kids' clothing, blankets and pet blankets. Vinnies is often the first place to which people turn. I commend the work of the volunteers and staff at Vinnies assisting our local community.

Like Vinnies, the Rotary Club of Sutherland also does an amazing job providing support within our local community—most recently, and particularly, for victims of domestic violence as well as for our homeless youth. They also support important projects overseas. I was privileged to attend the changeover dinner last Friday night. I congratulate Nouri Nader, the outgoing president. I wish President-elect Alan Heighway and his directors all the best for the upcoming year.

These charitable organisations are so important. They're run by volunteers on shoestring budgets. Never have these groups been so important, because over the past two years my local community has been finding it more and more difficult. From Bundeena to Bangor, Heathcote to Hammondville, Sutherland to Sandy Point, Maianbar to Moorebank and Waterfall to Woronora, families, households and small businesses are suffering from crippling inflation that this government has still failed to get under control. Monthly core inflation is now at 4.4 per cent. My community knows that this government has been bad for it and that this government has cost it money and will continue to do so into the future. We cannot afford this government any longer.

In New South Wales alone, almost one-third of school students have family ties to languages other than English. Community language schools provide important opportunities for schoolchildren to ensure that Australia's diverse traditions, languages and culture can thrive.

Through the Albanese Labor government's $15 million scheme to assist the more than 600 community language schools across Australia, we are not only investing in children's education but also investing in a future for Australia where diversity is recognised and celebrated and where every Australian knows they have an important contribution to make. Over 90,000 students learning 84 different languages will benefit from this funding, including those in my electorate of Newcastle, where nine community language schools have received grants to support upgrades to classrooms, purchase equipment, improve access for disadvantaged students, strengthen online delivery or establish new schools so that more students can access language learning.

Congratulations to the following community schools in Newcastle: the Afghan Association of Hunter; Eine Kleine Deutsche Schule; the Newcastle Arabic School; the Newcastle Korean Language School; the Russian School of Newcastle; the Macedonian Orthodox Community of Newcastle and Districts; Tibetan Children's School of Newcastle and Hunter Region; Wananchi Newcastle, who teach Swahili; and the Alliance Francaise de Newcastle, whom I enjoyed a visit with just last weekend and who received $33,600 to support their important language work. I want to give a very big shout-out to all the teachers, students, families and volunteers at that centre.

I also want to acknowledge the seven Newcastle businesses that received support from the Albanese Labor government with the energy efficiency grants to help keep their power bills down. Congratulations go to Maxwell Recruitment, Maxwell Apprentices and Maxwell Training; to Kooragang Water; and to Peter Kilmurray Lawyers. A special mention must go to the two that I was able to visit very recently. The first one is the Mayfield West Kebabs and Charcoal Chicken shop, which is a favourite amongst local tradies—and my office staff, it must be said! They received a grant to upgrade their refrigeration and exhaust system. The second is the Newcastle Theatre Company, who replaced their stage lighting with LEDs, which not only saves on their energy bills but is also a much cooler outcome for performers on stage.

Because today is 1 July, small- and medium-sized businesses like these will also be getting $325 off their energy bills. When cost-of-living pressures are being felt, this government is here to support our community and to support our small businesses, because that's what Labor governments do.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 25 June 2024, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) the number of older people in Australia is anticipated to grow from 4.31 million people aged over 65 years in 2021 to 6.66 million by 2041 with the number of those aged over 85 years anticipated to grow 140 per cent from 534,000 to 1.28 million over that same timeframe;

(b) many older Australians report experiencing age discrimination, elder abuse, financial stress and homelessness;

(c) one in three people report experiencing age discrimination after turning 50, with employment-related and other forms of age discrimination reported, including when accessing businesses and financial and Government services such as My Aged Care;

(d) 20 per cent of pensioners are considering going back to work but barriers in place to their doing so reportedly include dealing with government services including finding digitally-based Services Australia interfaces inaccessible;

(e) 94 per cent of older people are concerned about rising living costs in the long term, 26 per cent are extremely concerned, and 24 per cent of older people report an inability to access dental care due to its cost;

(f) Australia's homeless population is ageing, with the rate of homelessness growing by over 30 per cent between 2011 and 2016 for older women;

(g) one in six older Australians reported experiencing elder abuse (psychological, neglect, financial, physical and/or sexual) in 2021, with higher rates among those experiencing poor health or social isolation; and

(h) many retirement village residents report poor transparency and lax consumer protections and calls have been made for a national review and harmonisation of regulation; and

(2) calls on the Government to establish a portfolio and Minister for Older Australians to:

(a) demonstrate the Government's commitment to older people during a time of demographic change in which Australians are expected to live longer lives, but with increased reliance on key services such as health and aged care;

(b) act as a conduit between Government and the community to better engage with older people on matters which concern them, beyond aged care, and enable a whole of Government approach to policy-making for and with older Australians across multiple sectors and Government agencies;

(c) ensure Government services are accessible and inclusive for all including those who may not have ease of digital access or may be experiencing hearing or vision loss;

(d) champion our older Australians and shift the narrative of older people as vulnerable and in need of support (a 'burden') to more positive aspects of ageing and the contribution older people make to the economy and society;

(e) work with older people and the sector to address key issues including age discrimination, elder abuse, social exclusion and isolation, homelessness, access to and cost of health care, and financial stress; and

(f) reframe the current narrative to recognise that older people helped to build our nation and continue to represent some of our greatest assets, rather than promoting intergenerational competition or conflict.

The Intergenerational report2023 tells us a lot about the shape of our population in years to come. So, too, does targeted research from organisations like the Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Council on the Ageing and National Seniors Australia.

We expect the number of older people in Australia to grow from 4.31 million aged over 65—that was the figure in 2021—to 6.6 million by 2041. The number of those aged over 85 years is expected to grow by 140 per cent, from 534,000 to 1.28 million over the same timeframe. The impacts and contributions of older people are growing, and the issues affecting them need to be managed in a strategic and inclusive way.

Many older Australians report experiencing age discrimination, elder abuse, financial stress and homelessness. These issues are regularly raised with me, in my electorate of Mayo, which is the oldest federal electorate by median age and among the oldest in the nation. One in three people report experiencing age discrimination after turning 50. Employment related and other forms of age discrimination are reported, including when accessing businesses and financial and government services such as My Aged Care.

Twenty per cent of pensioners may like to work, but they face barriers. Those include dealing with government services, particularly Centrelink, and finding the digital and phone based interfaces with Services Australia incredibly challenging and inaccessible.

Ninety-four per cent of older people are concerned about the rising cost of living in the long term. Twenty-six per cent are extremely concerned. And one in four report being unable to access dental care, due to the cost.

The rate of homelessness of older women grew by 30 per cent between 2011 and 2016. That reflects, in part, women's lower lifetime earnings and resulting lesser wealth.

Nearly 15 per cent of older Australians reported experiencing elder abuse, whether that was neglect or psychological, financial, physical or sexual abuse, in 2021. There were higher rates among those experiencing poor health and social isolation.

Australians who acquire a disability after age 65 aren't eligible for the NDIS, due to the scheme's inbuilt age discrimination. Older people can only receive lower and often inadequate supports through the My Aged Care system.

So we have all of this data about the experiences of older Australians and the demographic changes we can anticipate. What do we do with this information? What we do is important. This knowledge provides the opportunity to enable older Australians to shape the future now. The existing narrative, I believe, needs to be reframed, to recognise and respect our older generations who helped build this nation and who are continuing to help build this nation. They, to me, represent some of our greatest assets.

That's why I'm calling on the government to establish a portfolio and a minister for older Australians, just as we have a youth portfolio, a portfolio for women and a multicultural portfolio. The minister would provide a conduit between government and the community, to better engage older Australians—on all matters that concern them, not just aged care. Aged care is the only ministerial portfolio that you could say is, technically, for older Australians. But we know that not all older Australians will have a connection with aged care in their lifetime. I believe that this will be essential to develop a coordinated, strategic response to our ageing population and to address issues such as age discrimination, elder abuse, social exclusion, isolation, homelessness and access to aged care. The other important role for the minister would be to champion older Australians and their positive contributions to society.

Too often, there's language that says older people are a burden, and this is just not true. We need to look at the more positive aspects of ageing.

I'd like to thank the Prime Minister for meeting with me and the member for Kennedy and the Chair of National Seniors, Ross Glossop, late last year, to discuss this proposal. Older Australians are our greatest asset, and we need to change this narrative and stop promoting this intergenerational competition. I believe the establishment of a portfolio for older Australians would go a long way to achieving this, and I urge members to support this motion.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

I also rise this afternoon to speak on the member for Mayo's motion calling for a minister for older Australians. Ensuring dignity, respect and care for older Australians is an important issue for me and for all members of the Albanese government. It's reflected in my regular seniors' forums, the production of and contributions that are made to my seniors guides, and my interactions with the many active organisations in which older Canberrans do so much great volunteering work right across the territory. It's crucial that we listen to and engage with our older Australians right across the country.

The Albanese Labor government has worked hard to improve the quality of life for older Australians, particularly those in need of care. We've put nurses back into nursing homes, given residents more time with their carers, lifted wages in the sector and improved transparency and accountability.

Since the October 2022-23 budget, total investment in older Australians in aged care has increased by 30 per cent. This includes an investment of more than $11 billion to deliver the largest one-off increase to aged-care wages in history, with more increases to come in the future. We continue to enhance the capability of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, to ensure older Australians are in safe and quality aged care; to upgrade technology systems, to make the new Aged Care Act possible; and to provide an additional 24,100 home-care packages to shorten average waiting times, giving older Australians the ability to stay at home for longer.

The new rights based Aged Care Act is a once-in-a-generation reform that will put older people at the centre of the aged-care system and ensure those who access government funded aged-care services are treated with respect and have the quality of life they deserve. It will also support the government's response to the Aged Care Taskforce.

The Albanese government is ensuring our national aged-care system has a world-class regulator, to meet the challenges facing the sector both now and into the future. We've accepted all 32 recommendations of the final Report of the independent capability review of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, with a number of recommendations already complete.

Older Australians are some of the highest users of PBS medicines and so have seen some of the largest benefits from the Albanese government's commitment to cheaper medicines. In 2022-23, over 60 per cent of total PBS expenditure went towards older Australians, while close to 240,000 older Australians in residential aged-care received more than 10.7 million PBS-subsidised prescriptions through 2023. We're also investing more than $300 million over five years to strengthen pharmacy and keep medicines cheaper, with a freeze of up to five years on the cost of PBS prescriptions for pensioners and Commonwealth seniors health card holders, so medicines stay cheaper instead of rising each year with inflation, benefiting people in residential aged-care homes in particular.

The Albanese government has already implemented its five aged-care election commitments, including 24/7 nursing, a record $11.3 billion pay rise for aged-care workers and increased transparency through Dollars to Care. We've also addressed 69 royal commission recommendations, and our work is having a tangible impact. Since the election of the Albanese government, older Australians are receiving an additional 2.16 million care-minutes every single day. There has also been a reduction in the number of pressure injuries, and in physical restraints, significant unplanned weight-loss and falls, while we're also seeing improvements in the star-ratings data, with fewer one- and two-star ratings and more four- and five-star ratings. I list these achievements and important undertakings of the Albanese Labor government, as they highlight that we don't just need a dedicated minister for older Australians; we actually need a government that is ready to invest the time and money to ensure that older Australians enjoy the dignity and respect they deserve.

We have some great champions for older Australians in Ministers Wells and Butler, who are determined to reform aged care and restore dignity to older Australians, and I thank them for their important work and thank the member for Mayo for moving this motion. I also thank the many people right across this chamber who are working with their older constituents to ensure that they have a voice in every part of policymaking that occurs through this parliament.

I have the greatest respect for the member for Bean—and he knows that—as I have respect for every member of parliament in this place. However, the member for Bean has completely missed the point. This motion is not about the government's response to aged care. This motion is about older people, their place in Australia, respect for older people, living life to its full as an older person and older people being given the opportunity to participate actively within the confines of the nation. As the motion points out, the number of Australians over 50 is going to increase exponentially over the next 10 to 15 years. I happen to be one of that group.

I was asked on radio this morning, Deputy Speaker McKenzie—and you're not going to like what I'm about to say—'Do you think the Liberal Party are ageist?' and I had to answer, 'Yes, they are.' But I should have said—and I didn't get a chance—that it is because they reflect the rest of the Australian community. The Australian community say to people like me, 'We're old and we're retired, so why aren't you old and retired?' Because I don't feel old and I don't feel like retiring. Why? It was never about my performance. As one elder and former leader of the party said, 'He's too old and he's been there too long.' There was no question about performance. Then I was asked about President Biden's age, and I said: 'It's nothing to do with President Biden's age. It's about his competence.' It's nothing to do with his age. There are plenty of people of that age who are still working on their farms, still working as doctors and specialists in their field. It's only Catholic priests now who are told that they've got to retire at 75. It used to be 70, but they ran out of priests.

I say to you, Deputy Speaker, that this motion by the member for Mayo gives an opportunity for Australia to grow up and recognise that older Australians have a place in the future—not looking to the past the whole time but a place in the future. The member for Mayo calls for a minister for older Australians. Wouldn't that be a turn-up—that we actually recognise that this major bulk group in the community deserves some attention, rather than saying, as the member for Bean said, that it's all about aged care and how we're going to look after them? No. They are looking after themselves quite well, thank you very much—overall. I know there are people doing it hard. There always will be, and we do our best to accommodate them. But, overall, older Australians have done well. They've worked hard. They've put a nest egg together. They have good superannuation. They have opportunities for pensions if they need them. And if they've paid off their house and they're not paying rent—I had one pensioner saying: 'What are you on about? Myself and my husband are doing quite well on the pension.' But they own their house, and they probably have a conservative lifestyle. I remember the mum of one of my friends saying, 'What are these people on about?'—she had been on her own for years—'I save money on the pension.'

I suppose it just depends on your lifestyle, how you operate and how you go. But this should be an exciting time for people, when they turn 50. One of our great popstars said this morning, 'I'm turning 40, and I'm excited to launch myself into the next stage of my life.' I'm saying that people turning 70 should be launching themselves into the next stage of their life, in an exciting way, in a futuristic way, in a way that says, 'I want to be part of this great nation, this great south land, this amazing place, and I want to take leadership roles and I want to be recognised for the experience and the ability that I have and the wisdom that I have learnt over many, many years, which will keep younger people out of the trouble that they would have headed for if they had kept going down the track they were on.'

This motion is a good motion, which recognises people in Australia over 50, over 60, over 70, sometimes over 80 and over 90. In fact, my aunty, who lives in your electorate, Deputy Speaker McKenzie, died within two weeks of her 102nd birthday, and at age 95 she went on a six-week fishing and camping trip with her son. Not bad. Good on you, Aunty Glad.

I'd like to thank my friend and colleague the member for Mayo for moving this motion. I don't agree that we need a minister for older Australians, but I understand the sentiments behind this motion. I am of course an older Australian. I'm over 70. I think that the motion is important because this is not just about aged care. Aged care is a very small part of what older Australians require. I'm someone who likes work and wants to continue working, and I still see patients as a paediatrician. It may seem strange that a paediatrician is talking on this motion. In fact, I did meet with the Prime Minister last year and said that I thought we should have a minister for children to specifically look after the needs of children in every piece of legislation that goes through this parliament. But, as an older Australian, I can see that the needs of older people are not being met in the way that they should be. Yes, aged care is certainly part of the issue, but there are many issues that older Australians face that the population is not aware of and are kept rather silent.

For example, we've had an explosion in the development of retirement living accommodation, but the legislation to deal with that and the requirements and standards in those areas have not really kept pace with the rapidity of the development. I know that my political office is often approached with concerns about retirement living legislation and conditions. We also know that, while many older Australians—many of my medical colleagues at my age—are doing very well, there are a small number of people in the older Australian group, becoming larger, that are struggling with issues like housing, access to health care and access to dental care.

Our government is working very hard to try and keep up with these needs, with the improvements in the pension and dental schemes, with looking at the transition-to-retirement schemes for people financially and with our increases in paying superannuation on paid parental leave, which will very significantly help, particularly with women as they approach retirement age. We're trying to increase their superannuation balances up to the same level that men have. We're also doing much in access to health care. Our cheaper medicines policies have been dramatic in the way they've improved access to health care. The 60-day prescribing has been described to me as one of the most significant changes in health care in the last 30 years.

We are an ageing population. More of us are getting older. In 2020, 16 per cent of our population were over 65. By 2026, over 22 per cent of the population will be over 65. They have needs, and they certainly are not always being addressed with our current social security and housing systems. Our life expectancy, of course, is increasing. In 2022, the average male could expect to live to the age of 81, and the average female could expect to live till 85, compared to 51 and 54 for males and females in 1900, so things are changing dramatically. Every year, we see an increase in life expectancy.

We must make sure that our society is conditioned and has legislation and has care for older Australians if they want to stay in the workforce or if they don't. We've done a lot as a government to improve the ability for people to still earn money while they're on a pension. There has been an increase of $4,000 in the amount that people are able to earn per year without affecting their pension. This has been a dramatic difference, encouraging people to stay in the workforce. It's estimated that, if we can increase by three per cent the hours that older Australians are working, this will add $33 billion to the economy every year. So I think it's vitally important that we keep older Australians in the workforce. We see this in medicine. My uncle Hyme, at 91, was still seeing patients until last year, and I said to him, 'Why don't you think about retiring?' He said, 'I don't like gardening, and I'm too old for bowls.'

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

I rise today in full support of a motion put forward by the member for McEwen highlighting the crucial steps taken by the Albanese Labor government to address the pressing issue of cost-of-living challenges facing Australians. Today marks a significant milestone for every Australian taxpayer as they receive a long-awaited tax cut. In Pearce alone, 86,000 residents are set to benefit with an average tax cut of $1,618 per person. It's important to know that Labor's tax cuts are designed to support a vast majority, including 85 per cent of taxpayers in Pearce totalling 73,000 individuals. Whether you're a nurse, teacher, police officer or tradie or you're working in retail or another industry in Pearce, we will be delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer and bigger tax cuts for more workers to help with the cost of living.

From 1 July, the Albanese Labor government will deliver a $325 energy bill relief directly to small businesses around the country. This shows the Albanese Labor government's commitment to small businesses in Pearce and to ensuring that jobs in those small businesses are not only protected but also provided with a strong economic environment for jobs growth. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting small-to-medium businesses across the country and is providing a $290 million cash-flow support by extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off. The Albanese Labor government is also encouraging business owners to invest in their businesses, and, as small-to-medium enterprises grow and succeed, they will provide more local employment opportunities and contribute to the wider economy.

The Albanese Labor government is providing billions of dollars of cost-of-living relief to help ease some of the pressure that people have been experiencing during these times. We have provided cheaper medicines and energy bill relief, both of which are very much welcome in my electorate of Pearce. We have tripled the bulk-billing incentives for millions of Australians, and the Housing Australia Future Fund commences, along with further instalments of our energy rebates. We are doing our best to ease pressures on Australian households, and recently the ABS data has confirmed our $23 billion cost-of-living relief plan is working, taking half a percentage point off inflation.

The residents in Pearce will welcome new legislation that allows new pension entrants over the age-pension age and eligible veterans to start with a work bonus income bank balance of $4,000 instead of $0. Both new and existing recipients can keep the maximum work bonus balance limit at $11,800, up from $7,800. This change aims to support employment, which is a crucial factor for many. This will help people who wish to work if they want to, and I do know residents who are over the age-pension age that wish to do exactly that. We are doubling the employment income zero-rate period to reduce barriers for income support recipients to take up work, by allowing them to retain concession cards under the benefits for longer when they return to work. These are all key factors for income support recipients considering a return to work.

The government's 10-point cost-of-living relief plan, costing $22.5 billion over five years, has been clearly outlined. So let us recap what it entails: delivering the Energy Bill Relief Fund, providing cheaper child care, increasing Medicare bulk-billing, delivering cheaper medicines, boosting income support payments, increasing rent assistance, providing fee-free TAFE training, building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and getting wages moving again. We know that we do not live in a vacuum and that world events are inflicting price pressures on Australians. That is why we're rolling out tax cuts to every Australian, along with billions of dollars of cost-of-living relief that has been carefully thought out to help Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn.

Starting today, 1 July, the Albanese Labor government is delivering tax relief for Australians where they need it the most. Our plan puts money back into the pockets of all taxpayers to help with the cost of living. This additional income will provide better support for all taxpayers and assist families in Pearce with covering their living expenses. The government's economic plan is all about helping Austrians, including in my community of Pearce, to earn more and keep more of what they earn, which is why our budget is focused on cost-of-living tax cuts for every taxpayer, energy rebates for households and small businesses, and real wages growth.

I rise in support of the motion that tackling cost-of-living pressure must be the government's No. 1 priority, as indeed it is mine. The cost-of-living crisis is having a very significant impact on the people of Mackellar. When people who don't live there think of Mackellar, they typically think of Palm Beach and Whale Beach, which are indeed some of the most beautiful and fortunate parts of Australia. What they overlook, however, is the vast majority of the electorate, from Dee Why to Davidson, from Narrabeen to Narraweena, and Collaroy to Cromer, where ordinary Australians and families are quite simply doing it tough right now.

Demand for food support from wonderful Mackellar charities such as AOK and Street Mission has never been higher. Regardless of the cause, over the past two years I have consistently called for and supported many steps to alleviate the impacts of the cost-of-living crisis. I supported capping gas prices when the war in Ukraine made them soar. I supported making child care more affordable and making visits to the GP and medicines cheaper. I supported paid parental leave and fee-free TAFE and I also supported making HECS far fairer. I supported investing in the construction of more affordable and social housing and the inquiries into price gouging by supermarkets. Importantly, I supported the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts so they are fairer and benefit more people, especially people on lower income who were going to miss out.

But the main thing I want to talk about today, which will have an enormous long-term impact on the cost of living, is energy prices. As the world transitions away from fossil fuels due to climate change, Australians will nevertheless continue to demand two things from our energy system. They will want it to be as inexpensive as possible and as reliable as possible. These two core demands are vital for households and for our economy, particularly if we truly do want a future made in Australia by expanding our manufacturing base. It is these two demands, not ideology and not politicking, that must dictate our energy. They are pragmatic.

The 2023 GenCost report by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator confirmed that firmed renewables are the cheapest form of reliable energy in Australia both now and to 2030. It is simply irresponsible and undermines the status of our nation's key scientific body for the coalition to argue otherwise for political reasons. The Grattan Institute explains that the 20 per cent rise in the cost of wholesale electricity prices last year had a few main causes: the war in Ukraine causing global gas shortages and pushing up the price of gas, outages at ageing coal power plants reducing competition, and extreme weather events causing flooding in coalmines. The fact that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy and getting cheaper is the one thing countering further rises in energy prices right now. Already, 40 per cent of Australians' energy is generated from wind and solar—a 25 per cent increase in the last two years. So we are already a long way down the path to the 82 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. Energy prices will continue to reduce in line with the increase of renewable energy inputs to our grid.

On the other hand, the CSIRO and AEMO found that nuclear energy generation would be the most expensive energy technology available for consumers. Relying on nuclear energy would make household and business energy bills go up, not down, causing inflation throughout our economy. We know from experience that nuclear reactors generally take a couple of decades to build. Heading down the nuclear path would be too expensive and too late to help with the cost-of-living crisis we are experiencing right now. It is absolutely critical that Australia has cheap, clean energy now, in this decade, not in two decades time.

To make energy cheaper for households and businesses, I call on the government to invest heavily in the rollout of rooftop solar and behind-the-meter battery storage. This would take the pressure off building big renewable projects and transmission lines in the regions and immediately deliver lower energy prices for Australians across the country. We cannot make the transition to clean, cheaper energy quickly enough. It is good for the planet and it is good for our back pockets.

We all know that cost-of-living pressures mean Aussies have been under the pump for quite some time. They were under the pump before we came to office two years ago, and they're still under the pump. The big difference is that this government is doing something about it. We are tackling the cost of living as the No. 1 priority of the Albanese Labor government. It's why our budget and our economic plan are all about easing inflation and easing those pressures in household budgets.

From today, 1 July, every taxpayer in this country is getting a tax cut. Not just some taxpayers, and not just some who are earning high incomes, but every single Australian taxpayer, all 13.6 million, get a tax cut. That includes 280,000 Tasmanians, and that includes 46,000 of my constituents in Lyons. This government is delivering cost-of-living relief to all Australians, not just to some. Our tax plan delivers bigger tax cuts for more taxpayers than Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago. An additional 2.9 million Australians earning $45,000 or less, who missed out entirely under the former stage 3 cuts, will now receive a tax cut. Just think about that. Those who need relief the most were to receive not one red cent under the Liberal's stage 3 tax plan. We changed that plan, and we have now ensured that people earning under $45,000 a year are getting a tax cut. On average, women will retain an additional $700 per year compared with the former government's stage 3 cuts. It's still a great shame in this country that, on average, women continue to earn less than men.

I am particularly proud of these tax cuts in Tasmania because 90 per cent of Tasmanian taxpayers, nine in 10, are going to be better off under Labor's tax plan than they would have been under stage 3. As the member for Lyons, I know that my constituents in my big, regional electorate are absolutely feeling the pinch on their household budgets. It means something to me to be able to look them in the eye and say, 'We know that you are hurting, and we are doing something about it.'

This government understands the pressures they are under, and we are taking real action to ease those pressures. From today the Albanese government is rolling out meaningful and responsible cost-of-living relief. There is a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. For many, it means doubling the tax cut that they would have received under stage 3. Every household gets $300 in energy bill relief. There is $325 for small businesses from today. There will be a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian. There will be an expansion of our Paid Parental Leave scheme. There will be more funding to build more homes in every part of the country. If only the coalition and the Greens would get out of the way in the Senate so we could release more housing funding. All this comes on top of a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers backed by this government.

Of course, the cost-of-living relief set to flow from this week is building on cost-of-living measures the government have already delivered in our first two years of government: cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE for nearly 500,000 Australians, the biggest boost to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk-billing—including, of course, the creation of Medicare urgent care clinics across the country. We're about to get a fifth one in Tasmania, and I'm proud to say that it's in my electorate of Lyons. All this is making a difference to the cost-of-living pressures that people are facing.

We know that the work is not over. We don't pretend, for even one minute, that it is. We know the work is still to be done, but we are doing it. We are taking real action because we absolutely care about getting the job done. It's a fact that Australians are better off under a Labor government. More jobs, higher wages, bigger tax cuts—that's what the Albanese government is delivering. Australians are earning more, and, as of today, they will get to keep more of what they earn.

With all this pizzazz and excitement, you would think that people out in voter land would be dancing in the streets and rejoicing. I wonder, member for Wright, are they dancing in railway street in Beaudesert? They're certainly not dancing in Baylis Street in Wagga.

Labor talks about tax cuts and power price reductions. The member for Lyons has just mentioned, 'This is our No. 1 priority.' He said it very earnestly and seriously. That was what was on his talking points. And they all come in here and say, 'We want them to earn more and keep more of what they earn,' I mean, it is just a paraphrase of, quite frankly, the dirt unit's talking points.

But, seriously, they talk about cost of living being the No. 1 issue—for now. Let me tell you, it wasn't the No. 1 issue last year. Do you know what was? It was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. It was the referendum. I haven't seen the Labor Party so excited since, as the member for Wright just reminded me, they thought they were going to win the referendum. Remember that? They thought they were going to win the referendum! How did that go for you?

We want our Indigenous peoples to receive the best services, to receive the most help and to get the most support that they need, particularly in regional and remote Australia—remote in particular, where the services are lacking, and that is a fault of all of us. But Labor were so committed they spent $450 million to $500 million on the Voice, and it failed. While they were talking about the Voice, while ministers were going over to London and elsewhere decrying what we were doing here and how terrible we were, and while the anti-Australian Greens were out saying how racist we were, the cost of living was escalating for families right across this nation.

When the Voice failed, all of sudden Labor thought, 'Gee, we better do something.' Somebody actually belled the cat. Somebody said, 'We've got a cost-of-living crisis in this nation, and Labor is in charge.' Labor members then thought, 'Oh my goodness.' Some of them ventured out of their electorate offices and heard what was being said in railway street, Beaudesert. They heard what was being said even in Canberra, in the member for Bean's electorate. Right across the nation there was this growing concern about the cost of living, and now it's like there's a big grizzly bear that has monstered the government, because it's rampant and out of control. Labor is now backpedalling to see what they can do about it. They offer 300 bucks for power savings. Well, they promised $275 97 times prior to the election. The Prime Minister said: 'My word is my bond. We're going to be more transparent. We're going to do the right thing by the Australian people.' Then they got focused on other things.

We hear from those opposite about affordable child care. I'd just like available child care. You talk to, particularly, mums across regional Australia, and they would just like a centre to drop their children off at so they can participate in the workforce.

And then we hear about power price cuts. Well, it's winter and it's cold; winter in Australia is cold. Let me tell you, there are a lot of people wearing another layer of clothing and putting another doona on their bed overnight because they can't afford to turn the heater on. That is a fact. More people are using the likes of the Salvos and St Vinnies than ever before, and that is such a shame. We do have a cost-of-living crisis.

I was down near the Murrumbidgee River in my home town of Wagga Wagga yesterday and saw the number of tents that had popped up alongside the river. Those people can't afford a house, they can't find a house, they can't afford to rent and they can't find anywhere to rent. This is a growing crisis. Labor has only just cottoned on to the fact that it is out of control, that people are hurting and that people, particularly those in regional Australia—not that those opposite would care—are doing it very, very tough. Those people in regional Australia—like the member for Wright's electorate and mine, Riverina—are the ones who carried this nation during COVID. They were the ones who carried this nation, provided the food, provided the fibre, provided the mining exports and kept the lights on. That's what regional Australia does. It's time that those opposite realised and addressed the cost-of-living crisis.

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

Beef roads are so very important. I can remember when I was the Deputy Prime Minister—in the golden age of Australian democracy!—going to a press conference with the erstwhile Minister Matthew Canavan and the then member for Flynn, Kenny O'Dowd. We were announcing significant funding for an upgrade—a $30 million project. We were contributing $20 million, because that's what we did when we were in government—we actually provided the lion's share of the funding. This mob, Labor, have reduced it to a fifty-fifty arrangement with the states. So many roads and so much infrastructure has not been built because the states don't want to stump up the additional money. But it was 80-20 when we were in government. Anyway, Ken O'Dowd, Matt Canavan and I were announcing, as part of the $400 million beef corridors road program, the sealing of 457 kilometres of roads in that great state of Queensland—cattle country, Member for Wright. There we were at the press conference, and it was Ken O'Dowd's turn to speak. He said, in true Kenny style, 'This is going to be so great, not only for the farmers, not only for the community, not only for the abattoirs but also for the cattle, because they're going to get to the meatworks quicker.' Only Ken could say something like that. But, in Ken's laconic fashion, he was right, because it was actually going to lead to the cattle getting to the processing plant faster and in a less bruised state than they would have otherwise on a rocky gravel road. Certainly for the truck drivers this was going to be good, if not for the cattle, who were going to be processed sooner.

Mayor Kerry Hayes of the Central Highlands Regional Council said that delays to this beef roads program—which is what those opposite are putting in place—were just wrong. When Kerry Hayes speaks, people should listen. He's one of those laid-back mayors, but, I tell you what, he's the salt of the earth and a pillar of his community. He said it showed Labor's lack of understanding on delivering infrastructure for regional Queensland, and he was right.

The roads that will be sealed under the funding are the Clermont to Alpha Road, May Downs Road, Kilcummin to Diamond Downs Road, Alpha to Tambo Road, Dawson Developmental Road and Fitzroy Developmental Road. Whilst they might not resonate—they might not be household words, names, projects or roads in Canberra—rest assured they make an absolute world of difference to those people in Central Queensland and in northern Queensland, where cattle are so very important to the local economy for food. Rest assured it is cattle country.

The coalition government got on with the job of supporting major Queensland road investments. Now Labor is putting vital road upgrades at risk and therefore putting lives at risk. I have to give a shout-out here. The member for Wright, if he has a dictionary handy, might throw it at me, but I worked well with Mark Bailey. Mark Bailey was a good minister. He was certainly a good minister to projects that needed upgrading. I know he was minister for main roads for nearly nine years. For six years and five days he was Minister for Transport, until 17 December 2023. He and I worked well because we put the politics aside. We put the national interest and Queensland's interests first and foremost. I pay credit to Minister Bailey for getting things done. It's a shame Minister King can't do the same and have the same spirit of cooperation with Queensland and with the national interest.

I may be from Canberra, but the Smith ancestors are from Capricornia.

I will start by saying this: the funding for this project has not been delayed. Talk about funding profiles and funding being cut is a furphy. The coalition allocated paper funding to this project before the work had actually been done to ensure that it was ready for delivery. The Queensland government has now undertaken rigorous planning of these projects, and they are now moving into construction. The truth is that the Albanese government is delivering the beef corridors projects, something the coalition talked about but never delivered. They are all sizzle and no sausage.

Queensland's beef corridor network stretches across nearly 218,000 square kilometres and runs from east to west across Central Queensland. This strategic web of roads carries world-class beef product and contributes $1.7 billion to the Australian economy. We agree that upgrading the beef corridor network will increase productivity across the agriculture and resource industry sectors and also improve safety. The Australian government, in partnership with the Queensland government, will work with seven local government mayors and key industry stakeholders on the identification of short-, medium- and long-term beef road priorities to inform a 10-year Central Queensland beef roads investment strategy.

The beef corridor project was developed by seven councils, with the aim to seal nine sections of eight unsealed roads, upgrade three sealed roads and improve access to Gladstone port. The $500 million project is funded 80-20 with the Queensland government. The member for Capricornia made the accusation that this project has been further delayed, but, curiously, the member's motion does not recognise that, on 13 March 2024, the Queensland government announced the first stage of construction, starting with the following projects—funnily enough, projects that the previous speaker has informed the House about:

I note the member's frustration with this funding not coming sooner, but I also reminded the member that her party was in government for nearly a decade. The question should be: if the former LNP government believes so strongly in this project—and it is a good project—why was it relegated to an election commitment and not properly funded? It was paper funding by a government that loved the announcement but did little to deliver. I can understand the member would be so frustrated that they might have some beef with their own side on this issue. After all, politics is a high-stakes game. The previous government had a particular penchant for making grand funding announcements and not delivering on them. Take the Molonglo Valley bridge in my electorate. It was announced but is only properly funded and now being delivered by this government.

We are a government focused on actually delivering projects, not just delivering on press releases. Undertaking proper design, consultation and procurement for these projects takes time to ensure the projects that are built are the right ones in the right locations and for the right budget. I recognise the important work that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has done to rein in spending to ensure that we can deliver the infrastructure the federal government has actually committed to.

Finally, Australian beef is a byword for quality, which is why there's always a place for it on plates across our country and far beyond our shores. Supporting infrastructure for safer roads that protect truck drivers and produce is critically important for this Albanese Labor government. In conjunction with the Queensland state Labor government and in partnership with local councils, we will continue to invest in the mighty beef corridors to ensure that the $1.7 billion economic corridor continues to operate safely and deliver the high-quality beef Australians and the rest of the world enjoy.

I want to acknowledge the work conducted by the member for Capricornia in the amazing advocacy that she has persisted with whilst in this place. There is never a time that I'm in her company that she doesn't mention the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program or Roads of Strategic Importance, both of which I was the assistant minister for and had carriage of whilst in government—$110 billion. Before I make my contribution about the member for Capricornia 's beef roads program, I want to say that it's ironic to hear the member for Bean—a good man in this House—boasting of the Labor government's ability to rein in spending and yet bring forward and fast-track events. Only one of those statements is correct. If you want to test the theory, I direct you to the seven mayors who are advocating in Central Queensland for this beef roads program. They have not been a single voice. I had the great opportunity to catch up with the seven mayors recently, in Rockhampton—my birth town and a great community to grow up in. It's got two rather large meatworks facilities, one that was owned by AMH but is now owned by the Swift company, JBS. The Teys family—Teys and Cargill—have the other meatworks.

Central Queensland, a catchment area for our national herd, holds about 30 per cent of the national herd numbers. There's a huge capacity for breeding and fattening in Central Queensland. There's a lot of traffic that comes through the beef road network to Rockhampton for processing, notwithstanding the additional feedlots that have gone in in the last decade in Central Queensland. It is right that the member for Capricornia advocate for more money for her domestic roads.

These roads were all funded; do not misunderstand that. When I was the assistant minister, every announcement we made had funding tied to it. But what they regret to inform the House is that the funding on these state roads was tied to the state government. If you're looking to lay blame for where the go-slow has happened, if you're looking to understand who has turned their back on the beef producers of Central Queensland, if you're looking for where fault should lie, I direct your attention to the Queensland state government, and rightfully so. They have had pressures on their infrastructure budget. Look at the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane, a $3 billion tunnel underneath the river which, I think, was going to be $3 billion but has now blown out to $9 billion. Don't quote me on that, but that blowout of cost is significant. When you're looking at which programs are going to get clipped for these signature milestone infrastructure programs of the state governments to be funded, it will be these beef road projects.

During COVID, there were two sectors that kept our economy afloat: the resources sector and the agriculture sector. If we're going to protect ourselves into the future as good economic managers, these are not difficult decisions for us to make as coalitionists. They are not difficult decisions for those of us that have strong economic management credibility. We need to make sure that we invest in the future in these programs. We need to make sure that we build the infrastructure. We committed to it when we were in government.

One of the ways that we can help the seven councils who are looking for the beef road programs in Central Queensland is to get rid of a tired Queensland Labor government and to install an LNP government in Queensland that we can work with, that understands the value of those people from the regions and their commitment and that understands how hard it is for councils to raise funds to get these projects done. In doing so, we build greater wealth. In doing so, we enable the agriculture sector to look after its own destiny. We create safer roads. We get families home safer. We look after an industry that's looked after us as a nation. I commend the member for Capricornia's motion to the House.

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13 : 24 to 16 : 00

Last week both Autism Tasmania and Disability Voices Tasmania announced that they'd been forced to close their doors due to a lack of funding, despite them providing vital services for people living with disability in the state. No wonder my community is rightly concerned. For instance, I've been contacted by constituents who are alarmed and aghast by the announced closures, concerned by the impact that this will have on their lives as well as the lives of their loved ones. So much for National Cabinet signing an intergovernmental agreement just last December acknowledging that they must work together better to address growing pressures on the health system and the NDIS.

Some 26 per cent of Tasmanians live with disability, compared to 18 per cent nationally. But, because of these funding decisions as well as the failure of state and federal planning and cooperation, Tasmanians have been left without the critical advocacy and support they so desperately need. We've heard time and again from this government that they don't want the NDIS to be the only lifeboat in the ocean for people with disability, but the shocking reality is that many Tasmanians and their families feel like they're being forced to walk the plank right now, and that's simply not good enough. Frankly, governments need to fix it.

As of today, every Australian household will get a $300 subsidy to their power bills, and small businesses will receive $325. I'm also pleased to advise South Australians that the default market energy offer, set by the Australian Energy Regulator, has reduced by 2.2 per cent. This should be passed on by your energy company, but, unless your contract is on the default offer, you may not be getting this reduction.

What can you do about it? The Albanese Labor government has set up a website, Energy Made Easy, to help you compare your energy contract with the default market offer and other offers available. The website works for electricity and gas and is available to all households and businesses. If you haven't looked at your contract lately, you could be saving hundreds of dollars. Simply log on to energymadeeasy.gov.au and enter your postcode, suburb and some simple information available on your power bill to compare your current deal with what's available in your local energy market.

This government has capped coal and gas prices in an effort to turn around the energy prices that were hidden by those opposite. With the 2.2 per cent drop in the default market offer in South Australia, it is starting to work. I encourage Boothby residents to make sure that they're getting the best deal they can.

Labor have now put stronger sanctions on Senator Payman than they have on Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist government in Israel. Labor have put harsher sanctions on someone who is speaking up for the people of Gaza than on an extremist prime minister who is conducting a genocidal invasion of Gaza. That is shameful.

People may be wondering, 'What can the government here do about this war that is taking place in Gaza?' The answer is: a lot. Labor spin and say there's nothing we can do, but that's not the approach they take to other conflicts, with 703 sanctions placed on or in connection with Iran, 568 for Syria and 1,300-plus for Russia. But, when it comes to Israel and placing sanctions on the extremist Benjamin Netanyahu government, there's absolutely nothing, even as 130,000 Palestinians have been killed or are injured or missing.

We need action and we need to take steps, because otherwise, every time Benjamin Netanyahu crosses another so-called red line and there are no consequences from the international community, he will keep doing it. Thousands more will die from the bombings unless we take action. Labor could sanction Israel, could stop the two-way arms trade, could expel the Israeli ambassador until the invasion stops and could join South Africa's case in the International Court of Justice. It is time for Labor to act.

It's time to hold the big supermarkets to account. It's time to continue our support for the farmers who grow the fresh produce we rely on. And it's time to continue our work to provide more relief for cost-of-living pressures—pressures often felt at supermarket check-outs.

As part of this work, the Albanese Labor government has accepted the recommendations of the Emerson review into supermarkets. As a result, Australia will now have a mandatory code of conduct, with hefty fines of up to $10 million for unscrupulous conduct—because what's the point of a code of conduct without hefty penalties? We're also accepting the review's recommendation to provide farmers with better protection when speaking out against the conduct of supermarkets. We're also introducing price monitoring, so you can get the best deal at the check-out. Just jump onto the CHOICE website to find out more. All of this work is making it fairer for consumers at the checkout and fairer for the farmers who are growing our amazing produce.

The Albanese government is taking meaningful action to deal with the big supermarkets. We're taking meaningful action so that farmers can earn more and to ensure our communities get a fairer deal at the check-out.

Yesterday, I attended the Willunga and Districts Lions Club handover. I had the great pleasure of sitting next to past district governor Bryan Hearn OAM. We chatted about the Lions' eye-health program, and I said to him: 'I would like to bring this up in the parliament.' Last year, this program screened 10,000 children from preschool age up to 18, checking their eyes for vision as well as looking at colour and depth. They travelled all across Australia, from inner-city to remote Australia. So far this year, they've tested 7,000 children, and, shockingly, one in five are picked up with a vision issue; those children are then connected to an optometrist.

There are more than 1,000 Lions members across Australia who have trained for the program, funded by the Lions. They ask each club to donate $4 per member, and most clubs donate far, far more than that. Lions also have the Recycle for Sight program, where old glasses are cleaned, checked and then repurposed—largely, to go to developing nations.

I would just like to say thank you to Lions for their extraordinary work and thank you to the Willunga and Districts Lions Club for your hospitality yesterday. I think that the work of Bryan Hearn, who is taking leadership on this, is really saving children's lives. We know that, if they can see, they've got a much better chance of reading and learning. My best wishes to past President Gerry McKeegan, and I wish the incoming president, Sean McCracken, every success. (Time expired)

Recently, I was contacted by Emilie from Watsonia. Emilie tells me that her daughter Zoe was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 2022 at the age of nine and her dad, Craig, has lived with the disease since he was 15. During these school holidays, Zoe and Craig will walk over 80 kilometres from the Dromana Pier on the Mornington Peninsula all the way back to Heidelberg, in four days, to raise funds for a cause very close to their hearts. All the funds they raise will support type 1 diabetes research at St Vincent's Institute of Medical Research, Australia's largest type 1 diabetes research facility. This is really important work.

Our government is supporting people with type 1 diabetes. We have expanded access to continuous glucose monitoring products, through subsidies on the NDSS, and we have made a $273 million commitment, providing 71,000 more people with type 1 diabetes with access to CGM products. This is on top of our significant financial support for essential medicines like insulin, and for blood glucose test strips, through the PBS and NDSS.

There is much more to be done to support people with type 1 diabetes. Further research and funding into diabetes treatment is immensely important—not just to Craig and Zoe, but to so many others in my community and others who hope for a cure and for further improvements.

Zoe, all the best for your fundraising efforts. It is such an important task you are taking on. Thank you for highlighting this important issue.

This federal budget delivered very little relief to the growing costs for many businesses throughout the Townsville community. Dad and Daves Tuckerbox is one such small, locally owned business, known for their popular burgers and sandwiches. In a cost-of-living crisis, the owner, Sorelle, has been conscious to keep their prices low, to support our local community. However, their bills—including utilities, ingredients and everything else—are soaring. But the one bill that is really hitting them the hardest is their electricity bill. They have been forced to run a takeaway shop with one less fridge and one less fryer, in an effort to reduce their electricity costs. Even after making these changes, their latest bill increased by 38 per cent. These large, unsustainable increases are crippling many local small businesses just like Sorelle's in Townsville. It is creating an uncertain future for many businesses, with many questioning whether they'll be able to trade tomorrow or have to close forever.

We can't keep letting our businesses suffer while Labor puts all their eggs in one renewables basket. We need reliable base-load power that will keep the fridges running and the lights on 24/7 and keep costs down. We must have a cheaper and consistent energy future for Australia, and only we on this side of the chamber will keep the lights on without driving small-business owners into the ground.

Recently, the Gladesville Public School P&C put together their annual trivia night fundraiser at one of my favourite local drinking spots, Gladesville Sporties. The Gladesville Public School community came together with incredible spirit and generosity, smashing their fundraising target and raising over $25,000. The fantastic generosity of locals will go towards purchasing new curriculum reading books for students, enhancing student wellbeing and resilience programs, conducting cyberbullying seminars, acquiring classroom resources and upgrading smartboards. What a wonderful display of the entire Gladesville committee coming together to support the school it was. There were over 50 local businesses across the area, from local gyms, restaurants, cafes and cake suppliers to orthodontists and beauticians, all providing gift vouchers or supplies to auction off. People really do love Gladesville and its community spirit. Whilst I, sadly, was unable to be there, I was able to donate a special MP experience for a day, and I'm so pleased that I'll soon be hosting Harper and Elliott with their dads here in Canberra, showing them all the behind-the-scenes of being an MP here in Parliament House.

This event wouldn't have been possible without the dedication and hard work of the P&C, and I offer my congratulations to Tilda Chu, Meg Scott, Alana Fox, Felicity Cook, Feliz Okun, Peter Tuck, Andrew Faber-Nelson and the president, Serena Faber-Nelson. Thank you for all your hard work and for supporting Gladesville Public School.

Criminal gangs are targeting my community, and the residents have had enough. I picked up the paper two days ago and noted that Doncaster police were noting that criminals were impersonating them. The scammers make a phone call pretending to be from Doncaster police. To the residents of Doncaster or anywhere else in my electorate: if you get a call like that, ask for a reference number and then call the police station back to check.

But this isn't the first time. In April we saw criminals pretend to be police officers, break into a house and then hold hostage, for want of a better term, a family with a five-year-old while they stole $400,000 worth of jewellery. The five-year-old had to sit on the couch while they robbed the home. A neighbour heard the commotion, and the family fought back against the attackers, with even the five-year-old punching the attackers. But this isn't a laughing matter, because months earlier a young doctor, Ash Gordon, also confronted intruders in a Doncaster home, in January 2024, and he died.

Crime is out of control in Doncaster, and we need to do something about it before other people are injured or killed.

I'm feeling pretty optimistic today. We have a new parliament, we have a new financial year and, from today, we have new tax cuts. I know that many Australians are under pressure right now, and that's why Labor is helping all Australians with the cost of living. That's why 1 July indeed is a good day. From today, there will be a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. In my electorate of Swan, that means a tax cut for 94,000 people. Seventy-seven thousand of them will receive a bigger tax cut because of Labor. In WA we will be getting $700 of energy bill relief for every household in WA thanks to the Albanese and Cook Labor governments. We're also freezing the cost of PBC medicines for every Australian. We are seeing a pay rise for 2.6 million workers. That's the third under Labor. We've got more funding to build more homes—an additional $105 million for WA. And that's not all. Federal Labor has already delivered cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment in expanding bulk-billing ever. All of this is part of: a long-term economic plan; a plan to help Australians right now; a plan to bring down inflation; and a plan for a future made in Australia.

Far too often, we hear all the negatives about the youth in our community, but I want to share with the House some great, positive news that has come from the Forde community over the past few weeks. The Beenleigh Yatala Junior Chamber of Commerce hosts a terrific event every year in my electorate—the BYCC Young Business Leaders Program. It showcases some of the brilliant minds and innovative ideas from some of our local schoolkids. The students who attended this year's Young Business Leaders Program presented their ventures, vying for recognition in several categories.

The best showcase award went to Rachel Weisz, a year 9 student at Livingstone college, for her delectable business concept, 'Sweet Delights'. Dekota Henwood, another year 9 student—this time, from Canterbury College—impressed the judges with her most innovative idea, the 'ScrubMEEZE', an ingenious shower accessory. Emily Oliver, a year 11 student at Livingstone college, secured the most viable idea award for her business concept, 'Create Crate'—a subscription box service that caters to seniors and individuals living alone. These were some truly impressive ideas. Year 7 student Bear Newsham from Canterbury College took home the award for best branding for his venture, 'Artbands'. The coveted people's choice award went to Henry Seiler, a year 7 student at Windaroo Valley State High School, for his business idea, 'Gifts That Count'. These people should all be congratulated for their efforts. (Time expired)

Recently, St Peter's College held its 30th anniversary at the Cranbourne Turf Club. In attendance were community leaders, including St Agatha's parish priest, Father Anthony Rebelo, from my local church, and my state colleague Pauline Richards MP.

The night, hosted by Principal Chris Black, celebrated 30 years of excellence in education, and I was honoured to present awards to those outstanding teachers who had reached 20 years of service. In addition to those who reached 20 years of teaching, I want to congratulate Kelley Cooper, Cathy Heijden, Phillip Mustey and Robyn Young on their huge 30 years of service. Your dedication to serving our students has, no doubt, impacted the lives of thousands of members of our community. When many of you started teaching, I hadn't even started primary school yet. In your roles, you have demonstrated a level of leadership, professionalism and service that has been outstanding and contributed to the ongoing growth and success of St Peter's College over the years. Happy 30 years.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Daryl Wilson of Upper Mount Gravatt. Daryl has been our Bonner community's representative as part of the Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group since 2019. Uniting governments, industry professionals and locals, this group serves as a forum for those impacted by developments and operations at the Brisbane Airport—particularly those relating to noise pollution.

It has been a pleasure to work with such an experienced and passionate advocate. Daryl has represented our community's interests well, and I applaud him for his service. Flight noise can be a frustrating issue for many in our community. As someone who lives under a flight path, I say, with the upmost sincerity, that I am working hard to effectively advocate for commonsense solutions to this issue.

Together, Daryl and I have fought and advocated for commonsense solutions in the best interests of Bonner locals' health and standard of living. With Daryl's assistance, I have written to the minister, submitted multiple petitions and hosted forums to ensure everyone can have their voices heard. While our petition on the proposed flight paths for the southern suburbs of Bonner is still being considered by Airservices Australia and the minister, I have been encouraged by the success of the phase 1 petition. Thank you to the 1,800 locals who have signed. I am very proud to say that our voices were heard. (Time expired)

Tangney is home to 162 nationalities. With almost half of the people of Tangney born overseas, Tangney is rich in different cultures, traditions and languages. We share our cultures and take the opportunity to learn new ones. At a recent coffee catch-up with community members in Tangney, I had the pleasure of meeting the Garvey family and their daughter, who is at the top of her Chinese-language class at All Saints College. I spoke with her in Chinese language, and I was very impressed by her passion, commitment and enthusiasm to immerse herself in a different culture.

The Albanese Labor government has provided approximately $15 million to more than 600 community language schools as part of our grants program. This funding will assist more than 90,000 students learning 84 different languages in Australia. Learning a second language—or a third or fourth—is helping us to connect to the languages of our parents, our grandparents, our neighbours and our communities. A shared language helps us embrace diversity and harmony. Thank you to the Garvey family for sharing your experience of learning language.

We are fortunate to live in a country where the sacrifice of Australian men and women has safeguarded our freedoms. The disrespect shown this weekend with the vandalisation of four memorials here in our nation's capital was disgraceful. In my community, memorials in Montrose and Seville have also fallen victim to this deplorable vandalism. I want to pay tribute to my state colleague the member for Evelyn, Bridget Vallence, for her strong advocacy for tougher penalties for those who vandalise our war memorials.

I had a call this morning from Lilydale RSL president Bill Dobson. Bill and many other veterans rightfully want to see more done by the Prime Minister and his government to deter these abhorrent acts. As I stand here today, an act like this receives no more punishment than vandalism at a train station. When the Montrose memorial was vandalised, I don't remember the hatred painted but rather the actions of locals who rallied together to clean the memorial so Remembrance Day services could go ahead. As a nation, we can take a lesson from my community. We should be focusing on the things that bring us together, not the things that divide us.

That was the reason why I hosted my Don Parsons Memorial Anzac Creative Writing Prize—to raise awareness of the significance of our war memorials amongst future generations. We have a role to play as leaders in our communities, and that starts by us working together in this parliament to protect the legacy of our veterans and preserve the war memorials that honour their memory.

Peter and Rosario Raineri have been running their deli in Five Dock in my electorate of Reid for more than 45 years. Raineri's Continental Delicatessen has everything that is great about a local deli: a huge antipasto selection, freshly sliced cheese, cured meats and a DIY panini bar, where I recently went in for a ricotta and ham panini with marinated eggplant, capsicum and artichoke. It was delicious. But, most importantly, the Raineri family have been able to create something special in their shop, a sense of community where everyone feels like family. They have put their heart and soul into their small business, one of so many that make Five Dock such a special community. When you sit down at the communal table in the middle of the store, you really feel the magic of Raineri's. I had a wonderful chat with the people sitting next to me, who had come all the way from the eastern suburbs just to have lunch at the deli. Congratulations, Peter and Rosario, on building a business and a family in Five Dock. Stories and families like yours make up the diverse Australian community that the Albanese Labor government seeks to support every day. I hope Raineri's is still standing in 45 years time.

I recently hosted the shadow minister for communications in Fisher, and I took the opportunity to call for funding for mobile service infrastructure. Since my election in 2016, I am pleased to have secured federal funding for new or expanded mobile phone services in communities like Conondale, Glenview, Caloundra South, Caloundra West, Beerwah, Glass House Mountains, Peachester, Beerburrum and more—all under a coalition government. But there's room for more, particularly across the Glass House country and Maleny communities.

Regional Queenslanders are bearing the brunt of Labor's mobile failures. Labor slashed the Mobile Black Spot Program in the 2024-25 budget. Can you believe that? I can't believe it. And the last round of mobile service funding was used to reward Labor seats in three out of four cases. Three out of four cases in their vast array of regional seats—can you believe it? Labor have all but abandoned regional Australians, as have their metropolitan counterparts in the Greens and the so-called Independents. After two years of crisis and neglect at every level, it's clear that only the LNP cares about connecting regional Queenslanders.

Today is 1 July. From today, every single taxpayer in my electorate of Chisholm will receive a tax cut because our government, the Albanese Labor government, is helping Australians with the cost of living right now. That means that 81,000 people in my community will receive a tax cut. That will be on average around $1,640. Our government does know that Australians are under pressure right now, so our government is helping all Australian taxpayers with the cost of living.

In addition to tax cuts, every household in Chisholm will receive $300 in energy bill relief. Eligible small businesses will receive $325 in energy bill relief. Additionally, today 2.6 million of Australia's lowest-paid workers will get their third consecutive pay rise, because our government backs workers. We're freezing the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian. We're delivering more funding to build homes in every part of the country. We're delivering two weeks of extra paid parental leave. This builds on the work we've already done to ease the cost of living, such as delivering cheaper child care and fee-free TAFE. We know there's more to do, and we'll keep working every day for all Australians.

After two years, the Albanese Labor government has continued to fail Australians on housing. Today's the day that the Labor government is apparently going to start building 1.2 million homes for Australians. After two years, the only thing this government has constructed in the housing sector is a bureaucracy costing $30 million so far. In the meantime, Australians, especially gen Z and millennials, have all but given up on homeownership. Homeownership now has never been less affordable in this country. It used to take on average months or a couple of years to save for the average deposit for the average home on average Australian salaries. Now it is 12 years. To service an average loan in Sydney, it takes an income of over $280,000. The seventh-largest lender now is the bank of mum and dad. This means that we in Australia are now approaching the position that whether you own a home or not will depend upon the circumstances of your birth. This is untenable.

That is why the coalition has announced that it will allow Australians to access up to $50,000 of their superannuation balance to purchase their own home. We will also implement a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing residential property. We'll also reduce the permanent migration program for two years only by 25 per cent in recognition of the urgency of this housing crisis. The coalition understands how important homeownership is to Australians, while this Labor government continues to fail on housing.

BELYEA () (): Australia Post has announced the closure of the Wells Street post office in Frankston as of 9 August. Unsurprisingly, the community and I are disappointed in this decision, which will affect businesses in central Frankston and local residents. I was out speaking to businesses in central Frankston last week. Many businesses have thriving online business and are stretched for time. They require almost daily trips to the post office to dispatch packages. Now, business owners will have to travel even further to do so. Frankston will only continue to grow in the future years as a designated Victorian government metropolitan activity centre, with Frankston to become a business hub. We have received a total of 1,600 signatures to the petitions established by Paul Edbrooke, MP for Frankston, and the Frankston Business Collective. I put forward the case with my colleagues and the people of Dunkley that a post office must stay in central Frankston. I want to thank Australia Post CEO Paul Graham for meeting with me and the Mayor and CEO of Frankston City Council to hear the community's concerns around the closure. Discussions with Australia Post to find a solution will continue.

On another note, I would like to acknowledge the final day of Felicity Topp, CEO of Frankston Hospital, last week. Thank you, Felicity.

On a rainy afternoon in Boort in the east of my electorate of Mallee, my heart was warmed by the many people who came out to see me in the mobile office at Godfrey & Bear cafe. It was great to meet with a stream of community members needing help with Centrelink or Veterans' Affairs bureaucracy and women who were very concerned about the lack of child care in their childcare desert. I also met with council, who work tirelessly to find creative ways to fund the many and valid expectations of their ratepayers, with a diminishing federal funding pool.

It was also wonderful to meet Martin Duke, the secretary of the Wycheproof Men's Shed, at Boort. He had come to celebrate with me the grant awarded to his group through the 2023-24 Volunteer Grants program. The $1,286 grant will help purchase new hand drills and spare batteries as the old ones were no longer holding their charge. It is great to support local volunteering and men's health through these small but meaningful gestures.

Today is an important day because today is 1 July and a great number of cost-of-living relief measures are coming into effect today. I want to talk about an example family and the benefits that they might receive as a result of these measures. We'll call them Emily and Nick. Emily is a retail worker on the minimum wage, and Nick is an electrician. They are living in my electorate of Canberra, and they are about to welcome their first child.

Emily, as someone on the minimum award wage, will today be getting a pay rise of about $2,000 a year as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision that was pushed for by our government. Today, Emily will be keeping an extra $870 and Nick will be keeping an extra $1,929 of their own earnings as part of our bigger and fairer tax cuts, which we're delivering for every one of the 78,000 taxpayers living in my electorate of Canberra.

Today, Emily and Nick will also get $300 back in power bill relief, as will every Canberra household, and, when their newborn arrives, they will be able to access a further two weeks of paid parental leave. When Nick goes to pick up his medicines next week at one of our great local pharmacies, he'll be paying less at the counter thanks to the freeze on PBS medications which comes into effect today. Wage rises, tax cuts, cost-of-living relief—it's all brought to you by an Albanese Labor government, and it would not be happening under those opposite.

I rise to highlight a historic milestone in my electorate of Dawson. Recently, I had the honour of attending the Bowen Fire Station's 100th anniversary celebration, an occasion that reminded me of the invaluable role emergency services play in our lives. From humble beginnings and old-style fire trucks to the sophisticated equipment of today, the Bowen Fire Station has served our community and safeguarded our citizens for generations.

To celebrate this enormous achievement, the station held a community open day, undertook training demonstrations and even showed the crowd how to put out a kitchen grease fire. Our career firefighters also showed their appreciation and respect for our rural firies, who, in an emergency, all band together to help keep our communities safe. For me, the day was a true reminder of the selfless dedication of our firefighters—their unwavering courage, their readiness to confront danger head-on and their commitment to protecting lives.

The firies are unsung heroes who embody the very essence of service and sacrifice and continue to put their lives on the line each and every day. I stand here today to honour the fine men and women who currently serve, and all those who have served, at the Bowen Fire Station. Their dedication deserves our utmost respect and admiration. Thank you. Happy 100th birthday.

I'm at that age where all my friends are having grandkids. Those of us with kids who are about to become parents are celebrating 1 July because it means that they will now be eligible for an extra two weeks of paid parental leave. That's 22 weeks to have at home to look after a new baby. Having a new baby can be one of the scariest and hardest things that you do emotionally, physically and financially. When I had my children 30 years ago, I didn't have a day of paid parental leave, nor could I afford to take any time off. I can see just how transformative this additional paid leave is for mums, dads and their partners so that they have some financial support without the need to work.

Paid parental leave will continue to grow: two weeks next year and two more weeks in 2026, as well as super being paid, to give young people the breathing space and flexibility they need with their new family. It combines with our cheaper child care plus the indexation to family tax benefits A and B, which were frozen for most of the time under the Liberals when they were in government. All of that now eases the cost of living for young families. These are changes that are not just for the moment. They are long-lasting, systemic changes, and I know that they will change the lives of young families.

I rise today to welcome the many Western Australian delegates attending this year's National General Assembly of Local Government who have visited Parliament House today. WA has the most local governments of any state. My vast electorate of O'Connor has the most local governments of any federal division—57 in all.

This year the LGAs of O'Connor have much to buttonhole the government on. Many delegates are from the great sheep-producing areas of WA and are very concerned about the government's plan to ban live exports. Another issue of concern for many O'Connor shires is the deal struck between federal and WA Labor on a statewide designated area migration agreement, or DAMA. The fear is that the all-new statewide DAMA will undermine regional agreements that LGAs in the Goldfields and the south-west regions worked so hard to secure under the former government.

Delegates from Katanning, Broomehill-Tambellup, Plantagenet and Albany are no doubt concerned about a draft DAMA for the Great Southern region that's been gathering dust on the desk of Immigration Minister Andrew Giles for more than a year. Those four LGAs are joined in Canberra this week by delegates from the Goldfields municipalities of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Coolgardie, Dundas, Laverton, Leonora and Ngaanyatjarraku. The Shire of Manjimup in the state's south-west is also here. O'Connor is a diverse electorate, and I'm so pleased that representatives of so many municipalities have come to Canberra to make their voices heard.

Back in 2008, the Killers released a song with a deep philosophical question that I, and I'm sure most of us here, must ponder sometimes: 'Are we human or are we dancer?' After visiting the Gawler Academy of Dance in my electorate of Spence, I think I've found my answer. I had my first exposure to the Gawler Academy of Dance watching the second episode of Behind the Scenes with Jess, presented by Jess McCall, a young journalist in my electorate who I've spoken about in this place before. It was my privilege to see more exceptional young people at the academy in person, with Jodie Lind and her daughter Jenna, who invited me to come along to an acrobatics session. I found a welcoming environment, helping all comers to keep active and connect with their community.

This contribution to my electorate cannot be understated, because sport and recreation groups like the Gawler Academy of Dance are the building blocks of our communities. They link the chains of individuals and families to come together for a common positive purpose. They give people like Lily, who I met on the night, the chance to embrace their love of musical theatre and share it with others who feel the same. Thank you to Jodie and to the amazing people at the academy for the work that you do in our local community and for showing me that we are human and dancer.

I rise this afternoon to support and praise a boxer from Warrnambool, Brian Agina, who I saw fight in Mount Gambier on Saturday night. He's currently the Victorian super bantamweight titleholder, and he's currently the Australian super flyweight titleholder. Brian's career is going to go from strength to strength. He's a Kenyan who has come here and dedicated himself to the boxing cause, has settled into the local Warrnambool community, takes part-time jobs, sends remittances back to his family in Kenya and is determined to have a successful professional boxing career.

It was fantastic to see so many Warrnambool people over in Mount Gambier on Saturday night supporting Brian. They understand the hard work and dedication that he has put into his craft. We look forward to watching Brian's career go from success to success. He is a great example of someone who has taken the opportunities that have been presented to him by our wonderful, wonderful country, and he wants to go on and have a successful professional boxing career. I have no doubt that he will be successful and I look forward to watching his career go from strength to strength. Well done, Brian.

Today is 1 July. Today the next steps of the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living relief package come into effect. From today every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut, not just some, because this government wants all taxpayers to earn more and keep more of what they earn. In my electorate of Newcastle, this means that 78,000 taxpayers will have on average an extra $1,642 in their pocket.

From today every Australian household will receive $300 off their energy bill, because we know that Australians are feeling the pressure from higher global energy prices. From today there will be a freeze on the cost of every PBS medicine for every Australian. For those that rely on medication for their health and quality of life, we know this will make a big difference. From today this government is providing a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million of Australia's lowest paid workers and we are continuing our work to lift wages for everyone.

From today new parents will have access to an extra two weeks of paid parental leave—a welcome change for families—and from today an additional $1 billion will be made available to build more homes across Australia. We are increasing Commonwealth rent assistance for nearly one million households to help with the cost of living for renters. The cost-of-living crisis didn't happen overnight, so it will take a while for us to clean up the mess we've inherited. But relief available from today will be welcome news for Australians. (Time expired)

Earlier today people from the Keep the Sheep campaign were in Canberra and met with the coalition backbench. I congratulate the 15 or so Western Australians that have come here for the Senate debate on this very important subject. There is no doubt, and no doubt in their minds or my mind, that Australian farmers are under siege at the moment. Whether it be fishing, forestry, irrigation, biosecurity levies, ute taxes or the scope 3 emissions to come, they are all going to be major impediments to our Australian agricultural industries.

We had the likes of: Holly Ludeman, a vet who actually sails on some of these vessels and who came this morning to meet with us; John Hassell, representing Western Australian farmers; and Paul Brown. They've now got, I think, over 60,000 signatories to their petition. They've raised over $400,000. They will be active campaigners going into the next election. Those people in Western Australia that have been supporting the bans on live sheep exports and those people that hold seats in this place should mind their patch. This is a growing movement. There are people all around Australia that are taking great interest in this and watching how they organise. Every farming organisation in Australia is behind them. There are local issues, and we will dig into those local issues as the election approaches. I wish them well.

Today there are 13.6 million reasons for people across this country to be extra excited. That's right: 13.6 million Australians will be receiving a tax cut. That's 74,000 people in my electorate of Spence, and 67,000 of those will be receiving a bigger tax cut. On top of that, for those on the minimum wage and those on the award, they will receive an increase of 3.75 per cent to their wages. That's 2.6 million workers across this country. That's right: we want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. On top of that, with our cost-of-living measures that roll out from this week, there will be cheaper medicines and $300 off the cost of your power bill. That's what an Albanese Labor government does. We've listened to the people of Australia and we are delivering policies and cost-of-living relief to take the sting out of your back pocket and make each and every day that little bit easier.

I'm extremely proud to be part of this government on this day. I think it's going to be known as the year of the tax cuts for Australians across this country, and everybody in this chamber should be in here with a big smile on their faces. Clearly, people in my electorate of Spence and around the country are extremely excited. We will continue to get on with it and do the work that needs to be done to take the sting out of the cost-of-living pressures across this country.

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

I'm pleased to rise to speak on this motion in relation to road safety—in particular, the collection of road safety data to improve our roads and systems. I speak quite often about my time in the police force: 12 years. They were immensely enjoyable years. But some of the toughest times and one of the toughest things I had to do—and I remember every single occasion when I had to do it—is knocking on the door in the middle of the night and telling a mum, a dad, a sister or a brother that their family member was dead. It's absolutely crushing. You can't imagine the grief—the sheer, raw grief—a family member experiences when you deliver that message. And right now that message is being delivered every single day three to four times a day. A police officer is walking up to somebody's front door, knocking on that door and telling that family member, that loved family member, that someone has died due to road trauma.

When I got into this place, I was determined to try and do something to improve the figures—the 1,300 or more lives that are being lost on our roads every year. It was an absolute honour to be the chair of the road safety committee when we were in government. We held many inquiries, and I was fortunate enough to go to Sweden for the third international road safety conference. The common thread throughout all of the inquiries through the international conference was the importance of collecting road safety data and sharing that data. It struck me as quite bizarre that the states and territories are protective of their own data and don't share it with each other or the federal government and federal agencies. What is the point of clinging onto data that could change or save someone's life or save somebody from being injured? Because that data is not shared for that information to come through, we on all levels of government—the federal government, state government, local governments—can't use that data to identify the places where people are being killed, identify what the problems are that are leading to people being killed or seriously injured.

Two years ago this Labor government—I'm not going to be political; we need to be bipartisan—committed to working with the states and territories to collect that data to share with everyone. We need hospitals to do this. We need police to do this. We need ambulance to do this as well. We need a central database to share with each other to improve outcomes and to save lives.

In my electorate alone, road deaths are five times higher than in metropolitan cities per capita. We know that 70 per cent of deaths on the road occur in regional and rural areas. That data is critical, and I urge this government to compel the states and the territories to share that data, to work with the federal government to have it there so that we can make informed changes and so that we can use taxpayers' money—it's not government money; it's taxpayers' money—to improve the roadways and the systems to look after our young lives, mums and dads, and tradies going to work. I call on the government to do this today. We have to demand and agree to consistently provide crash data, road data and enforcement data. Until we do, nothing will change.

No Australian should have to answer a knock at the door to hear that a loved one has lost their life on our roads. Such tragic loss of life is devastating for families and for our communities. That's why the Albanese government is taking action, with a collaborative approach to this issue, working with all levels of government and the community. We know that state and local government play a particularly important role, managing more than three-quarters of our nation's roads. Our government's National Road Safety Strategy and National Road Safety Action Plan reflect this, setting out key priorities for action across all levels of government, including road trauma reduction targets for the decade to 2030.

Our targets are ambitious but necessary. We want to reduce fatalities by 50 per cent and serious injuries by 30 per cent by 2030, a goal that will drive us toward Vision Zero by 2050. As a part of that plan, the Albanese government is taking unprecedented steps to respond to the concerning increase in road trauma noted in the member's motion. The government announced in April this year, in an historic first, that each of the state and territory governments has signed an intergovernmental road safety data-sharing agreement. This is a vital step towards improving road safety and something the Albanese government has been working tirelessly to achieve.

Road safety data is essential to understanding where and why road accidents occur. The Commonwealth will look to improve data sharing from the state through upcoming Federation Funding Agreement negotiations. For the first time, we will seek to include a provision in this negotiated agreement with the states that will create a requirement for the provision of nationally consistent datasets. This is a pivotal step towards harmonising, collecting, storing and sharing road safety datasets. To support this effort, the Albanese government has committed $21 million to the National Road Safety Data Hub to support enhanced evidence based road safety strategies to eliminate road trauma by 2050.

This new data-sharing agreement establishes the critical foundation to enable increased data sharing and collaboration between all Australian governments into the future. It will also pave the way for non-government researchers and other organisations to request access to national road safety data to support their work in creating more effective road safety policy and interventions. This newly signed agreement formalises the ongoing data-sharing arrangements between jurisdictions for road crash data currently collected from jurisdictions and outlines new terms of use for the sharing of road safety data. Initially the data-sharing agreement will formalise and standardise existing data-sharing agreements for road crash data currently collected from jurisdictions. It will also create the mechanism to increase data sharing over time as further datasets are identified and agreed for inclusion.

This is the first opportunity our government has had to act on the data through these intergovernmental agreements, and it comes after years of inaction by the previous coalition government. I note that the motion put forward by the member for Barker fails to mention the former coalition government's egregious neglect of road infrastructure and road safety systems. They had a decade to address road safety in Australia. They had a decade to make lasting, meaningful change with data collection. But, instead, they neglected the urgent need for reform.

Following our announcement, the Australian Automobile Association said that it was the most significant road safety reform in decades. Like the AAA, our government understands that data can highlight where best to target road safety funding. We understand that accurate and consistent data will help save lives and ensure all levels of government can identify and invest in road safety projects that will make the biggest difference. Australian families deserve action. We call on all states to provide their data so we can all do better and save lives. Our government will continue to act as we combat the increase in deaths on our roads.

First of all, I commend the member for Barker for putting this motion on road safety forward for discussion. Road safety is one of those areas that so many communities and so many individuals are impacted by. A road accident is one of those terrible events that can just reach out of everyday life, take someone before their time and destroy a family. I have listened to the speakers before me, particularly the member for Cowper, who is a former police officer, as I am. We know only too well what that looks like, and we don't want anyone else to be exposed to that if possible. That's why there is a goal around road safety that is striving for zero deaths. There are people working hard, and it is the case that, as the saying goes, road safety is everyone's responsibility. What we need, though, is for the states and territories to act responsibly in this fight against road deaths and start sharing the very critical information that they have. Much of it they keep secret at the moment, which is quite extraordinary.

We are living in the middle of a genuine crisis. We had 1,237 people lose their lives last year, and we still have around 40,000 people every year being seriously injured. Is that not enough for governments of all persuasions, at all levels, to say, 'We will do everything that we possibly can'? For some reason, states and territories are saying: 'No. We want to hoard our information relating to causal factors, injuries, road design, road ratings.' Only recently, and only through a freedom-of-information request, was I able to get some up-to-date data around road ratings, and it certainly did paint a very horrible, poor picture of the roads in Queensland. The vast majority of the roads are two-star-rated roads. They are killer roads. Very few are five-star-rated roads, the safest rating. But this is the information that should be readily available to everyone who's working in the space of road safety, not hoarded, effectively, by politicians who are afraid that they won't be able to make an announcement in a particular area because it's not justified, and that will stop pork-barrelling. Well, people are dying, and we need to put every effort into solving this. Sharing data is a good place to start.

The Labor Party came into power after the last election making a commitment that they were going to do this, they were going to cause data to be shared, pulling the levers that they have, particularly around infrastructure spending. And they have made some progress; I will say that. As previous speakers have said, we need to be as bipartisan as possible. But it is the job of those who hold the government to account to point out where they are failing. There have been failings in relation to road safety—particularly around the amount of money that has been given to states, and around the Bruce Highway in my state.

When we left government, the federal government's contribution was 80 per cent, and the states' was 20. Recently, the Labor government, at a federal level, changed that to 50 per cent from the states and 50 per cent from the Commonwealth. This is not a good decision for road safety. This is a decision that will see important infrastructure projects that would save lives put on the backburner. There's no accountability around that spending. It's put into a pool; it's not being put directly into projects, as we had been doing.

Road safety is everyone's responsibility. I call on the states to do what they should and share their data. (Time expired)

I'd, first of all, like to thank the member for Barker for moving this motion. Road safety is an issue that I feel very, very strongly about. The member for Barker and I have very little in common politically, but I know that he feels very deeply about this issue. And I agree with him: this is something that requires bipartisanship. We shouldn't politicise it at all.

My electorate of Macarthur has many roads running through it, with major highways, such as the Hume Highway, Camden Valley Way, Narellan Road, Raby Road, Picton Road, and the infamous Appin Road, which are narrow but major arterial roads that are bordered by trees, all of which pose a great threat to motorists and wildlife alike. These roads are used by hundreds of thousands of residents and visitors to our region every week, and, sadly, accidents are becoming more common—often with serious injuries and, I'm sad to say, fatalities.

Some roads are the responsibility of local councils; some are operated by the New South Wales government; some are federal government roads. This causes a lot of problems for residents and stakeholders alike when it comes to delivering the funding and upgrades. Appin Road is one example of this, as it has been considered a New South Wales government road. Given its length and the complexity of connecting us to the Illawarra and Southern Highlands, the need for urgent safety upgrades is quite obvious to everyone who lives in the area. But dealing with all the different levels of government has made it very difficult.

The federal government recently has provided some much-needed funding to upgrade Appin Road to make it safe, and I'm very pleased about this. The minister, Catherine King, has been very good about seeing the urgency of action, and I'm very pleased. After years of federal and New South Wales coalition governments ignoring not just my pleas but the pleas of residents, wildlife groups and various stakeholders, I'm proud that our federal government and the Minns New South Wales government are showing leadership and have begun to upgrade Appin Road, after countless deaths.

Further, I took the opportunity to also welcome the minister for local government to Macarthur the other week. We visited sites in Macarthur which have received funding as part of the Roads to Recovery Program, improving safety upgrades to our local roads. We've provided $26 million to the Campbelltown council, $21 million to the Camden city council and similar amounts to the Wollondilly and Liverpool councils.

I've also campaigned very strongly for a national road data collection hub, and, much like the member for Barker, I agree that there is a need for data collected by the states and territories to be collated into a single national system. It's very important. This will help governments better understand where and how funds can be allocated for vital upgrades and other safety measures. Given the fact that deaths on our national roads are actually increasing, it has been welcomed by major Australian road safety advocates, and I particularly thank the Australian Automobile Association for their tireless agitation to have a national road safety database. I'd also like to thank my friend and colleague Dr John Crozier, a trauma surgeon from Liverpool Hospital, who has been a really important national advocate for better road safety data.

I'd like to add one final note, and it is of a personal nature to me. I, sadly, lost a very good friend of mine, Dr Mark Henschke, in 2022, when he was tragically hit and killed by a garbage truck while cycling. Together with his brother Ian, I worked with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, as well as the Transport Workers Union, to get implementation of better safety measures on trucks and large vehicles.

I'm grateful that, in September last year, our government announced serious changes to the national road vehicle standards, to ensure safer trucks and large vehicles in Australia; that has been done and that will dramatically improve our road trauma data. These safety measures include the implementation of devices to reduce blind spots, electronic stability control for large vehicles, advanced emergency braking, a lane departure warning system, better reflective markings and side guards to stop pedestrians and cyclists from being caught up under the rear wheels of trucks. It really saddens me that these were not already implemented, as they could have prevented Mark's death. I'm pleased to know that our government has taken action to address this issue of pedestrian and cyclist deaths on our roads by introducing these very important safety measures. We will look to improve our safety measures in the future. This requires better data, and I'm hopeful that our government will continue to sponsor these very important road safety measures.

I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Barker. The newest statistics on deaths on our roads are unfortunately heading in the wrong direction. The latest data that has been recorded from January to April this year tragically informs us that 1,310 Australian lives have been lost on our roads in this four-month period. This is an increase of 132 souls compared to the same period last year. The Australian Automobile Association tracks the targets of the Commonwealth government's National Road Safety Strategy, or NRSS, 2021 to 2030. This tracking is revealing that these targets, such as halving road deaths by 2030, are veering way off course.

I want to acknowledge all those people and families who have been affected by motor vehicle accidents, those who have suffered an injury or, worse still, those who have lost a loved one in a motor vehicle accident—people like Kent and Kylie Payne in my electorate of Longman, who tragically lost their son Harrison, or Harry, as he was more affectionately known. Harry's life was tragically taken on 30 May 2021 when he was thrown from a four-wheel-drive vehicle as a passenger on the beach at Bribie Island when the driver was driving in a dangerous and reckless manner. He was just 18 years old. His death was senseless and completely preventable. I have had various meetings with Harry's family and attended the Deadlift for Harry day at his beloved World Gym at Burpengary, which, along with so many local businesses in Longman, continues to support the Payne family to raise awareness and funds and hopefully prevent other families from enduring the heartache and loss that they have suffered.

At the event held recently, I was given the honour of saying a few words. I want to reiterate in this place the words that I spoke that day in acknowledging and commending the entire Payne family and their willingness to invest so much time, energy, money and passion into this initiative birthed from such a painful circumstance. Most people, when they lose a child, go into their shell and are reluctant to speak about it after a grieving period, let alone reopen that wound over and over. These people, like the Morcombe family, are a rare type of individual. I thank God for their courage, and I know their efforts will not be in vain. They will save lives.

Like so many things we do in government, we are reactive rather than proactive. If we educate our young drivers as they begin the part of their lives where they get behind the wheel of a vehicle, we can surely prevent many of these senseless deaths. I want to see a driver education centre in the Longman community so that schools and parents have the opportunity for every teenager to go through a course that would teach them how to operate a vehicle responsibly and to actually hear from the families and individuals that have suffered loss or injury through motor vehicle accidents. Many times, it is simply that our young people don't understand the dangers associated with driving what is potentially a deadly weapon, not only to themselves but also to fellow road users. Providing a facility that provides hands-on experience, as well as an environment that encourages an open discussion with law enforcement and those from the medical and trauma professions along with families of victims and those who have injuries sustained from road accidents, will go a long way to preventing more accidents in the future. I also want to acknowledge the Rotary Club of Caboolture and their efforts in delivering the road safety rider awareness program RYDA to high school students in our local community.

There is a saying in business: what gets measured gets improved. As so often happens in our country made up of six states and territories, the data that is collected by governments at a state and territory level is not shared with the Commonwealth. So federal governments are not making decisions with the most accurate and up-to-date data, simply because data sharing is not forced or a fait accompli between all levels of government. I simply cannot understand this mentality or the rationale behind this thinking. Surely all levels of government, regardless of party, would want to reduce the road toll and would be willing to do anything, like sharing data, to ensure this happens. This Labor federal government committed in the 2022 election campaign to cooperate with states and territories to ensure this data was being shared, but to date we are seeing little in results. I implore this Labor government: no more talking. The people of my electorate of Longman and of Australia want action so more Australian lives are not unnecessarily lost on our roads.

I'm glad that road safety is a bipartisan issue. I thank and praise those members who have shared stories of loved ones and communities to remind us of the importance of road safety right across our country. I do find some of the premise of this debate a little disingenuous because, of course, in our most recent federal budget we as a government have committed $21 million for a national road safety data hub to support enhanced evidence based road safety strategies to eliminate road trauma by 2050. We are also working in collaboration with the states and territories in the collection of road safety data, which I note that those opposite have said they'd like to see, and we are actually getting it done.

We have, in a historic first, signed every single state and territory government in Australia on to the intergovernmental road safety data sharing agreement. It seems to be, essentially, what this motion is asking for and something the Albanese Labor government is working to deliver. I really hope that the motivation here in an important motion on road safety data is not to score political points, because that would be a great shame. Road safety is and should always be beyond politics. Road safety is about saving lives and preventing serious injuries, and we have consistently prioritised road safety in government.

When we came into government there was no finalised road safety action plan. The former coalition government did not bother to finalise a road safety action plan. Their neglect led to a two-year delay in crucial work on data sharing, collection and reporting. Since we have been in government, we have been implementing the National Road Safety Strategy 2021-30 underpinned by the National Road Safety Action Plan 2023–2025 in collaboration with all states, territories and local governments.

A key action under this plan is for road safety data to be efficiently exchanged and published. All states and territories have agreed to this plan and have signed on to share their road safety data, ensuring a nationally consistent dataset. This is a vital step forward in improving road safety and is something that the Albanese government has been working tirelessly to achieve. All of this work is pivotal towards harmonising, collecting, storing and sharing road safety datasets.

Every single death on Australian roads is a great tragedy. The Albanese government is committed to working with all levels of government to reduce Australia's road toll and work towards Vision Zero—that is, zero fatalities and zero serious injuries on our roads by 2050. This is ambitious, and we take this work very seriously. In response to a worsening road toll, we held a national road safety conference in April this year, bringing together more than 100 road safety stakeholders, to identify a range of government and industry actions that can target the road toll. This conference also included the first joint meeting between police and road safety ministers, and a set of actions to target the road toll was endorsed there. In this year's budget, we have doubled the Roads to Recovery funding, from $500 million to $1 billion in a year. We've also increased the funding for the blackspot program, which is progressively rising from $110 million to $150 million per year.

Road safety is a shared responsibility across all levels of government and the community, and it really matters to our communities. Our government will continue our work investing in evidence-based road safety measures, because we know how important this is and we take community safety seriously.

I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the crossbenchers are in charge. I am greatly honoured to serve with such handsome, extremely intelligent people. They have excellent intellects, and they actually use their intellects as well. I pay that tribute to the honourable leader of the House this evening.

Moving on, Queensland is an interesting state because we have a million people ruled by a government 2,000 kilometres away. Now, I'm not aware of anywhere on earth where people are ruled by a government 2,000 kilometres away. Some of us are 3,000 kilometres away. This illustrates the complete failure of democracy to take into account distance—which is taken into account in every other country on earth, by the way, except Australia, including Canada—with Nunatsiavut, the Eskimos get a special member of parliament—and in the Orkney Isles in Britain.

Brisbane has a population of 1.2 million, and North Queensland is near enough to one million in population. So the population of Brisbane and North Queensland are the same. I'm saying Brisbane—not the Sunshine Coast or the Gold Coast but Brisbane. Brisbane has 36 kilometres of tunnels; we have none at all. During this recent cyclone, Cairns was completely cut off—300,000 people were completely cut off. You couldn't get in by sea; the sea was too rough. You couldn't get in by helicopter or aeroplane because of the cyclonic winds. All three roads were hopelessly cut. The member Shane Knuth and I climbed down one of the holes in the main exit highway, and the hole was 20 foot deep. So we were trapped. Brisbane gets 36 kilometres of tunnels; we get none. What is going on here? The Liberals found a thousand million dollars for a pleasure dome for themselves in Brisbane, whilst people were dying.

From 2001 to 2017 the Kuranda Range Road, the main highway connecting the inland with Cairns—the Kuranda billy goat track, as it's called—had seven-hour closures 44 times a year over the last 16 years, if you like. It's not the last 16 years, because they've stopped giving out the figures. I can't blame them! Those seven-hour stoppages occurred 44 times a year. There has been 867 incidents, with 556 people hospitalised and 45 deaths, and still nothing is done about it. Yet they can find $36 billion for tunnels in Brisbane, but when we need a kilometre and a half—about a thousand million dollars—we get nothing at all. That is the situation, until we the KAP get the balance of power. Then we'll see what happens. That will happen real quick.

The Bridle Track tunnel will cut the time from the Atherton Tablelands, where there are 60,000 people. It will cut the time from Mareeba to the Cairns CBD from an hour and 20 minutes down to 26 minutes. Infinitely more important, actually, is the fact of the deaths. Almost as important is the fact that the great mineral province of Far North Queensland, the Chillagoe mineral province, cannot be opened up because we can't get the product out. It was bigger than the North West Minerals Province, which now produces $8,000 million a year of export earnings for Australia, but we can't get our product out because our port is cut off. We can't get to it. You can't get to it in a truck.

What we're saying is the Bridle Track tunnel was originally drafted by the pioneers. Martin Tenni's grandfather was a state member and minister who was determined to get this tunnel built, but he left parliament, unfortunately, before he got it built. It still needs to be done. In its infinite wisdom, the state government spent $2,000 million on the highway between Gordonvale and Cairns. I don't know what we achieved, really. Yes, it's a better and safer road, but a tunnel is needed. (Time expired)

If there's one topic that should be above politics, it's our road toll. No words can describe the pain felt by a family member or a friend impacted by a death or a serious injury on our roads. Every death on Australian roads is a tragedy and much more than just a statistic. Each casualty is a friend and might be a mother, a father or a child. The trauma of their loss echoes through the community and echoes through generations.

Territorians know this all too well. Thirty lives have been lost so far this calendar year, compared to just six last year, so things aren't tracking well. The Territory's road toll per capita is three times higher than the rest of Australia. Just this weekend past, we had eight traffic accidents, with 17 Territorians needing to be hospitalised or receive health care. Particularly today—if anyone happens to be listening—Territory Day, when everyone is having a good time and celebrating self-government, but also every day, please slow down on the roads. Please do not drink and drive. Pedestrians, keep off the roads.

As the federal government, we are getting on with implementing the National Road Safety Strategy. This is underpinned by the National road safety action plan 2023-2025, which is in collaboration with all the states and territories and our local governments. I acknowledge the work of our local governments when it comes to maintaining our road network, because they manage the lion's share of it. From my federal seat of Solomon, we have several members of both the City of Darwin and the City of Palmerston down here in Canberra, so it is a big week down here in Canberra for local governments. I wish them well and acknowledge their work.

I also acknowledge the Albanese federal Labor government's work on Roads to Recovery funding, which we are doubling from $500 million to $1 billion. I chair the local black spots committee in the Northern Territory, so I'm pleased that we've also substantially increased funding for the Black Spot Program, which is rising from $110 million to $150 million per year.

This motion calls for data collection and collaboration with the states and territories. Well, our road safety action plan is already linked to data collection arrangement with the states and territories. We are a cooperative and collaborative government, which is in our DNA, and I think Australians have already seen that through the National Cabinet. This is a key action under our plan for road safety data to be efficiently exchanged and published, a vital step forward to improving road safety and something that our Albanese federal government has been working tirelessly to achieve.

Moreover, a few months ago in April, in an historic first, each of the state and territory governments signed an intergovernmental road safety data sharing agreement. The Commonwealth will look to improve data sharing from the states and territories through our upcoming federation funding agreement negotiations as well. For the first time, we'll seek to include, in this negotiated agreement with the states, a requirement for the provision of a nationally consistent dataset.

But we're putting our money where our mouth is to support this effort. Our government has committed $21 million to the National Road Safety Data Hub to support enhanced evidence-based road safety strategies to eliminate road trauma by 2050. The government is committed to delivering a nationally harmonised set of high-quality and timely data, which will inform our already comprehensive road safety measures aimed at realising this Vision Zero target—that is, zero fatalities and zero serious injuries on our roads. In short, our government is already doing what the member for Barker has moved in this motion. (Time expired)

I want to reiterate what this debate is all about. This motion proposes:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 677 lives were lost on Australian roads in the six months to 31 December 2023; and

(b) the second half of 2023 was the deadliest six months on Australian roads since 2010;

We also have to think about how many injuries would've been sustained during that period. The motion also:

(2) recognises that the data needed to understand Australia's worsening road toll is being collected by state and territory governments but is not consistent and not being shared;

(3) further notes that:

(a) before the 2022 election, the federal Labor Party committed 'to cooperate with the states and territories to improve the timeliness and quality of road trauma data and look for opportunities to extract better quality road safety data from states and territories in return for funding of road projects'; and

(b) the Government has failed to deliver on that promise; and

(4) calls on the Government to compel the states and territories to collect and share data relating to the quality of Australian roads, the causes of crashes, and the effectiveness of road safety measures as a condition of the $50 billion in federal road funding allocated over the next five years under the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects.

This is an incredibly important motion, particularly for all those people who live outside our capital cities. It is absolutely vital, as all the major motoring organisations right across the country have said, that we get access to this data. Why is it important? Once we can get access to this data, we can understand what roads need that absolutely urgent work done to repair and fix them. It also means that we would get an end to what we have seen in the last couple of years, where money is ripped out of certain regions and put into other regions, with no understanding whatsoever of the conditions of those roads and the absolute need for them to be urgently fixed. If we don't see this happen, as all those motoring bodies have said—and they're the ones who are leading this campaign; we are supporting them—we are, sadly, going to see more fatalities and more injuries.

That is why we're calling on the government to do the right thing. They have a huge opportunity to negotiate with the states and territories in the next five-year infrastructure agreement when it comes to road transport. Now is the time to say to the states and territories, 'Enough is enough is enough.' We need transparency to save lives. We need transparency to stop people being injured on our roads. We need transparency so we can make sure that the money is allocated where it is needed most. The reason why those opposite won't agree to this is absolutely obvious. Take my home state of Victoria. If we had this data, this information, there is no way known that we would allow the Victorian state government to go ahead with the Suburban Rail Loop, because it would be absolutely clear that that money should be going into roads.

It should be going into roads in your electorate, Member for McEwen, and roads in my electorate, Wannon, and roads right across regional Victoria. How can you sit here and say that the Suburban Rail Loop is a good way to spend money? We need to see the money going back into regional and rural roads, not going into these projects which are fanciful, which we know will blow out by billions and billions of dollars and which will never be built. That is why transparency is so important. (Time expired)

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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that on Monday, 1 July 2024, 2.6 million low paid workers will receive a third consecutive pay rise; and

(2) acknowledges the Government's number one priority is to tackle the cost of living pressures facing Australians by ensuring they earn more and keep more of what they earn.

Today is 1 July, and 1 July is the day that 2.6 million low-paid workers will receive their third consecutive pay rise since the Albanese Labor government came to office. The government's decision to advocate on behalf of low-paid workers in three consecutive Fair Work Commission annual wage reviews has delivered astounding results. There has been a $5.30 an hour average increase in full-time award workers' earnings in our first term. That's an extra $200 per week, or $10,400 a year, before tax. We've seen a $3.77 per hour increase in the minimum wage in our first term. For a full-time minimum wage worker, that's an extra $143 a week, or $7,451 a year, before tax. A full-time minimum wage worker's annual salary has gone from $40,175 to $47,627 in just over two years. This is part of this government's plan to ensure that people earn more and keep more of what they earn.

We've delivered these wage increases while keeping unemployment at record lows and getting inflation to moderate. We know that people are under pressure, and pay rises are a tangible way the government is helping. Just imagine how much worse things would be for families if those opposite had their way and these pay rises had not happened. It took the coalition their entire wasted decade in office to lift the minimum wage by as much as we have in our first term, in two years of government. That's because the previous Liberal and National government never once argued for a rise in the minimum wage. They wanted to keep wages low, and that's one of the few promises they actually delivered on. The member for Dickson wants Australians to work longer for less. Labor wants workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn. This decision was a direct result of advocacy from the Albanese Labor government.

On top of those measures, our industrial relations changes are also delivering pay rises to Australians doing it tough. Our approach to workplace relations is delivering incredible results, with nearly half a million more workers covered by enterprise agreements, and award workers benefiting from $10,000 pay rises. We said our secure jobs, better pay laws would fix the bargaining system, and now we're seeing the proof.

The Fair Work Commission approved 1,022 enterprise agreements in the first quarter of 2024. New Department of Employment and Workplace Relations figures to be released today show this. That's well up from the same time period the year before, just after our secure jobs, better pay laws had passed the parliament. Agreements approved in the March quarter of 2024 covered 364,996 employees, the highest number of employees covered by newly approved agreements in over a decade. You will notice that theme of 'a decade' coming through very strongly. There were 2.14 million people covered by current enterprise agreements in the March quarter of 2024, around 480,000 more workers than when Labor came to government. The member for Dickson and his Liberals voted against secure jobs and better pay, saying our laws would close down Australia. Well, here we are. Australia's open for business. People have got a pay rise. It's 1 July 2024, and they're not just earning more; they're keeping more of what they earn because it's 1 July, and that means tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, not just some.

Australians are under pressure right now. We know they are. In my community I hear it every day. My neighbours are living it. That's why Labor is helping all Australians with the cost of living. Today is a red-letter day because today we are delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just some, as well as $300 energy bill relief for every Australian household and $325 for small businesses. We're delivering a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian and more funding to build more homes in every part of the country—and that's not all. This builds on already-delivered cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk-billing.

I'm proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government, very proud on 1 July that we're delivering for Australians, hoping like all of my colleagues that these measures make an impact in the household budget and that people feel supported by this government.

Is motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

The member for Lalor talks about incredible results, talks about inflation moderating. I wonder whether the average family in Cook, my electorate, feels like this Labor government is delivering incredible results. Are real wages really going up? Yes, it's great to have a pay rise, but we need to talk about real wages. Real wages have collapsed by almost nine per cent. Real wages are when you look at what's happening to prices and then at what's happening to income. If you looked at that, you'd see electricity is up by 21½ per cent. That means it's doubling every three years. It's great to pat yourself on the back for $300 in energy relief, but bills are up by almost $1,000.

If it weren't so serious and Australians weren't doing it so tough, it would almost be laughable to celebrate $300 in bill relief when bills are up by almost $1,000. People in my electorate feel sick. They're making tough choices about what they'll eat at night and how they'll pay their school fees. They're not celebrating $300 bill relief, because the bills are up by $1,000. They're not celebrating their wages, because they know prices have gone up by far more than their wages. Gas is up by 22½ per cent. Their gas bill is doubling every three years. Home prices are up by 14 per cent, doubling every five years. For those who are renting, rents are up by 14.2 per cent, doubling every five years. Despite those wage rises you were talking about, when you look at the cost, at what these people have to spend—in the last two years—

No, they're doubling every five years. If they keep going up by 14 per cent, in five years the prices will have doubled. That's what that means.

No, let me just correct that. The member is saying that they've doubled in five years. No, they haven't. At their current rate of increase, which is 14 per cent, they will double in five years.

This Labor government does not understand that inflation in Australia is rising. I'd like the next member who speaks to explain to me why Australia's inflation is now higher than in the UK, the US, New Zealand, Canada and the euro area. In every one of these places, inflation is falling, but under Labor and the Albanese government inflation is rising. It continues to rise this year. Why are we so different from every other advanced economy in the world? What makes Australia special? Why are Australian families and Australian consumers being subjected to this inflation and these higher interest rates for longer?

I'll tell you why. You've got a Labor government that is just not prioritising cost of living. They're paying lip service to prioritising it, but they're not, because their budget is so expansionary. They have spent an extra $30,000 per household in their budget. I would ask the average Australian household: do you feel $30,000 better off? That is what this government has spent for you. Where could that money have better gone? I'm sure the average Australian family would much rather $30,000 in their bank balance than being spent on Labor's expansionary budget.

If the government were really serious about improving cost-of-living standards, they would not just look at wages but also look at productivity. Productivity is being completely ignored by this government. Productivity has contributed more than 80 per cent of the growth in Australia's living standards over the past 30 years. But what's happened to it under the Labor government? It's down 5.2 per cent this year. The Australian government cannot improve real wages, real household wealth or living standards while it's letting productivity crater. It's down 5.2 per cent just this year. I'd love to hear what the next member is planning to do about productivity. I'd love them to address this.

Instead of working on productivity-improving reforms, or working with the Labor states on stamp duty or payroll tax, they're patting themselves on the back for tax relief when wages are actually going down. They're patting themselves on the back for giving $300 in energy relief when energy bills are up $1,000. If Australians weren't doing it so tough, it would almost be laughable; the irony would be delicious. But the average Australian family is struggling. They see through these supposed tax cuts and through this supposed energy bill relief. They see straight through it because they know they're worse off.

Labor has already delivered cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE—that actually helps productivity—and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk-billing. This is all part of a longer term economic plan, helping Australians right now, working to bring down inflation and planning a future made in Australia. We know there's more to do, and we'll keep working every day to deliver for every Australian.

That's why today is an exciting day, because it is the day that our government's further cost-of-living relief measures kick in. From today, 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut. From today every Australian household will get $300 off their energy bill over the next year, and $325 off for small businesses. From today there will be a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines, making medication cheaper for every Australian. From today the Albanese Labor government is increasing funding to build more homes across Australia. From today 2.6 million workers will be receiving another consecutive pay rise.

The government's decision to advocate on behalf of low-paid workers in three consecutive Fair Work Commission annual wage reviews has delivered astounding results. There has been a $5.30 per hour average increase in full-time award workers' earnings in the Albanese Labor government's first term. That's an extra $200 per week, or $10,400 per year, before tax. We have overseen a $3.77 per hour increase in the minimum wage in our first term. For a full-time minimum wage worker, that's an extra $143 per week, or $7,451 a year, before tax. A full-time minimum wage worker's annual salary has gone from $40,175 to $47,627 in just over two years. This is what happens when you have a government that goes in to bat for low-paid workers. When you show up at the commission and advocate for people who are doing it tough, you get results.

It took the coalition their entire wasted decade in office to lift the minimum wage by as much as we have in our first term. We know people are under pressure, and pay rises are a tangible way our government is helping. Just imagine how much worse things would have been for families if the Liberals had had their way and these pay rises had never happened. That's because the previous coalition government never once argued for a rise in the minimum wage—not once! We know that the previous coalition government kept wages low as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. That's their DNA. That's one of the few promises they actually delivered on.

The Albanese Labor government's approach to workplace relations is delivering incredible results, with nearly half a million more workers covered by enterprise agreements and award workers benefiting from $10,000 pay rises. We said our secure jobs, better pay laws would fix the bargaining system, and now we're seeing the proof. The Fair Work Commission approved 1,022 enterprise agreements in the first quarter of 2024. New Department of Employment and Workplace Relations figures show that's well up from the same time period of the year before, just after our secure jobs, better pay laws passed the parliament. Agreements approved in the March quarter of 2024 covered 364,996 employees—the highest number of employees covered by newly approved agreements in over a decade. There were 2.14 million people covered by a current enterprise agreement in the March quarter of 2024—around 480,000 more workers since Labor came to government.

Peter Dutton and his Liberals voted against secure jobs, better pay laws, saying that our laws would close down Australia. Oh, my goodness. The coalition had voted against every single one of our workplace relations measures. Of course, we recently learned that their industrial relations spokesperson, Senator Cash, has given her support to the New South Wales Liberal Party's WorkChoices-style policy platform. In a leaked letter to the New South Wales Liberal Party, Senator Cash said that their platform had several good ideas that align with the coalition's approach to industrial relations. What are their good ideas, according to Senator Cash? They include: making it easier to sack people, abolishing the better off overall test, removing rights as a condition of employment and removing award protections for thousands of workers.

What we know about these policies that Senator Cash has endorsed is that they would remove minimum pay and conditions for truckies, nurses, schoolteachers, Australian Federal Police officers, shop assistants, early childhood educators and coalmine workers. Under the Albanese government, more Australians are working, more Australians are earning more and more Australians keep more of what they earn. (Time expired)

Before I call the next member, we've had, I would say, around 20 minutes of a very noisy chamber. I've had a very hard time listening to the member. Please keep the interjections to an absolute bare minimum. The person on their feet has the right to be heard.

I rise to speak about Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Once again, we have a motion from those opposite that proclaims that addressing the cost of living is their No. 1 concern and priority. If that's true then it's a very sad indictment on the competency of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Australians aren't stupid. They're not silly and they can see through the spin of those opposite. Every time they get a bill in the letterbox or reach the cash register at the supermarket, they understand that things aren't getting better.

I know Australians are tired of the constant nitpicking of the major parties, and I think we have heard that loud and clear. But facts do matter, and they have to be called out because that is in the national interest. After two years of Labor the cost of essentials has increased significantly as follows: food is up 11.4 per cent, housing is up 14 per cent, rents are up 14.2 per cent, electricity is up 21.5 per cent, gas is up 22.2 per cent, health is up 11.1 per cent and education is up 10.9 per cent. And yet here we are today with another motion pretending that low-income earners under their watch are somehow better off. Who do you think those additional costs affect the most? Of course it's the low-income earners in Australia. The minor increases in take-home pay that those opposite are bragging about here today—shamefully—are eaten up by the inflated cost of living and the potential interest rate hikes.

Tackling inflation should be the government's No. 1 priority. Instead they've introduced $315 billion in new spending with absolutely nothing to show for it. While inflation tracks down across most of the developed world, ours is tracking upwards. Last week's release of the monthly consumer price index likely removes all hope—hope has been dashed—of the Reserve Bank cutting interest rates anytime soon. Headline inflation rose to four per cent, and core inflation, which is the RBA's preferred measure, rose to 4.4 per cent. This is the fourth month in a row that core inflation has headed in the wrong direction. The RBA only has one mechanism to tackle inflation and they have been left to do all of the heavy lifting. It is shameful.

More rate hikes are probably on the way, because of this government's failure to tackle homegrown inflation. Homeowners with a typical mortgage of $750,000 are already $35,000 worse off a year under this Albanese Labor government. Further rate hikes will only increase the burden on mortgage holders. So not only is the Australian dream of homeownership dead for young Australians, largely due to Labor's reckless migration program, but it is becoming a nightmare for mortgage-holders as well.

I will admit to following a few of those opposite on social media, and I have been amused by some of their recent posts. Every day, over the past few weeks, there's been a bit of a countdown and a few updates: 'Only 10 days till the tax cuts come into effect,' then nine days, then eight days and so on. Well, we are finally here. Hooray. Don't get me wrong. I am very pleased that taxpayers are getting to keep more of their own money, because, as Liberal and National party members, that's what we believe: that Australians should keep more of what they earn. Australians certainly know how to spend it better than those opposite.

But let's not pretend that Labor suddenly cares about cutting taxes; oh, no. We know that Labor is here today taking credit for reducing taxes, but they take no responsibility for raising them. Labor is banking $60 billion worth of bracket-creep and has increased personal income tax by 20 per cent since the election. The OECD Taxing wages 2024 report found that Australia's personal income tax burden grew faster than any other advanced economy's last year.

In conclusion, I'm calling on the government: stop patting yourselves on the back with motions like this, and get on with delivering a real economic plan to restore prosperity to our nation.

I'm very pleased to speak on the member for Lalor's private member's motion. After a decade of deliberate wage stagnation by those opposite—and we know it was deliberate, because they boasted about keeping Australian workers' wages low—and after a decade when Australian workers saw their buying power diminish, as a deliberate action from the former Liberal-National government, we've finally seen the change.

One of the proudest moments during the campaign for the 2022 election was when now Prime Minister Albanese was asked if he would back a $1 pay rise for minimum-wage workers, and his answer, as we all know, was, 'Absolutely.' And of course, after the election, it became so.

Under this government, the Fair Work Commission has raised the minimum wage by a total of $3.77 an hour. For a full-time minimum-wage worker, that's an extra $143 a week in their pocket or $7,451 a year before tax. It took the coalition an entire wasted decade in office to lift the minimum wage by as much as we have in our first term.

It's not only those on the minimum wage who we've helped. We've also seen an average $5.30 per hour increase in full-time award workers' earnings. That's an extra $200 a week or $10,400 a year before tax.

Why weren't there similar rises in the minimum wage under the previous government? Well, that's because the previous Liberal-National government never once argued for a rise in the minimum wage. In fact, they argued against it. They wanted to keep Australians' wages low, and that's one of the few promises they actually delivered on. Their submission to the annual wage review had a section called 'the importance of low-paid work'. The coalition were completely upfront that they wanted Australians to have low wages. They did not want the Fair Work Commission to provide wage rises—a fair day's pay for a fair day's work—for low-paid workers. Senator Hume said that, if low-paid workers got real wages growth, that would be the worst thing for Australia. Perhaps not for those Australians, but we'll leave that aside. Her coalition colleagues, the opposition leader and the shadow Treasurer, both said they opposed our recent workplace-relations changes, as they were going to result in 'higher wages' for Australian workers—as if it were a bad thing for Australian workers to profit from their labour. We've delivered these wage increases, while keeping unemployment at record lows and moderating inflation from the 6.1 per cent that we inherited from the previous Liberal-National government.

The coalition of the Liberal and National parties wants Australians to work longer for less and on insecure contracts. Labor wants workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn. But that's not all; we are also working to ensure fair work conditions sit alongside those better paid jobs. The Albanese Labor government's approach to workplace relations is delivering results, with nearly half a million workers now covered by enterprise agreements and award workers benefiting from $10,000-a-year pay rises.

We said our secure jobs, better pay laws would fix the bargaining system, and now we're seeing the proof. The Fair Work Commission approved 1,022 enterprise agreements in the first quarter this year, new Department of Employment and Workplace Relations figures released today show. That's well up from the same time period last year. Of course, the Liberals and Nationals voted against secure jobs and better pay, saying our laws would 'close down Australia'. This sits alongside other balanced commentary like 'ending the weekend', '$100 lamb roast' and 'the sky will fall'. They were dead wrong. Our laws have revitalised the bargaining system, meaning employers and employees are back at the table, negotiating agreements that benefit both sides. It means employers get better productivity and workers are getting pay rises. At the same time, industrial action has plummeted. Days lost to industrial action were seven times higher in the last quarter of the Morrison government than they are now.

The Albanese Labor government wants Australians to benefit from their work. We want Australian workers and their families to benefit from their labour. We want them to benefit from their efforts. Unlike those opposite, we want Australian workers to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

Let me be clear. I'm not standing before you to debate the need for those low-income earners to receive a pay rise. In this Labor-created cost-of-living crisis, it's desperately needed. In the last two years under this Prime Minister, we've seen promise after promise broken and we've seen the cost of everything going up.

Here are the facts. Under this one-term government, electricity is up by 21.5 per cent. The cost of groceries is up by 11.4 per cent. The cost of keeping a roof over our heads has gone up 14 per cent. The cost of health has gone up nine per cent. The cost of education has gone up 11 per cent. The cost of transport has gone up 13 per cent. The cost of insurance has gone up a whopping 26 per cent.

In my electorate alone, we've been inundated with calls from constituents who are struggling so severely that they are facing the threat of homelessness. We've heard from parents who have to make a choice about whether to feed themselves or feed their children. We've heard from people whose electricity bills have gone up by over $1,000. If the Labor government's claim to be doing everything they can to tackle the cost of living crisis were real, this wouldn't be happening. With this wage increase, those Australians who the Albanese Labor government claim to care about are going to see an increase in their salary of just over $30 a week. There is no way that this government can celebrate this when the cost of living or the cost of simply existing has gone up so much more for everybody in Australia.

Instead of curbing the cost of living, the Albanese Labor government were happy to spend $450 million on a failed voice referendum in the time when people needed our help. Those opposite are happy to spend trillions of dollars on a renewable energy fantasy that is going to see thousands of hectares of prime agricultural land and native vegetation wiped out and replaced with 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires, solar farms and wind turbines that will only provide Australia with part-time power and unreliable energy. Those opposite have implemented tax after tax on major industries, penalising the hardworking Australians who greatly contribute to our economy, making it more difficult than ever to be able to buy a house or put food on the table. Those opposite have axed foreign-worker schemes and implemented restrictions on remaining foreign-worker schemes, making it almost impossible for our farmers to afford to operate and get their food from paddock to plate, which is driving up the cost of living even more. Those opposite have passed their family car and ute tax, which will force car prices to increase by up to $25,000. That's not even taking into account the fact that some of these price increases could push vehicle costs up so high that they'll also incur the luxury car sales tax on top of that.

To make matters worse, those opposite have now voted to close down the live sheep export industry and to spend $107 million of taxpayer money to do so. Why is the Albanese Labor government shutting down an entire industry and destroying people's ability to make a living when we're in a cost-of-living crisis? I just don't get it. For some of these farmers, their families have worked their land for up to six generations, and it's all they've known. What are they meant to do now?

Those opposite have voted to employ 36,000 more bureaucrats in Canberra, at a cost of over $24 billion over the forwards. And those opposite want to pay Minister Shorten's NDIS speechwriter $600,000 over two years. Those opposite even sat on their hands when my colleagues and I called on them, time and time again, for an ACCC inquiry into supermarket price gouging.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 18 : 01 to 18:13

I have to ask seriously: is all of this just a joke to those on that side of the House? It truly defies all rational thinking. It shows the Prime Minister's ineptitude as a leader and lack of genuine care for the Australian public.

This motion is an insult to the people of Australia. It is an insult to the people on this side of the House, who wake up each and every day and try to make a positive change. The Albanese Labor government is failing and needs to do better.

I'd like to thank the member for Lalor for moving a motion today in light of how it's now 1 July and the final countdown is now over. This morning, 13.6 million Australian taxpayers woke up to a tax cut, and 2.6 million of those who are on award wages and earn the minimum wage also woke up to a pay rise. Those workers now experiencing their third 1 July under the Albanese Labor government may now be sensing a trend emerging: a trend that is seeing them earn more and, indeed, earn more than they would've if the Morrison government won at the last election.

We've heard over the course of this debate the member for Durack, member for Dawson, member for Cook—maybe I can forgive the member for Cook; he's only just been elected to this place. He's not been here for very long. But I have to say that the member for Durack has been here long enough to understand the policy settings by which their government went about oppressing wage growth in this country. I see a chuckle from the member for Riverina over there. He loves to come into this place and talk about how he's been a union member for 21 years and is so proud of it. I've heard it so many times I can't forget it!

The reality is that, before I came to this place, which was only two years ago, I did work at a union, representing some of the lowest-paid workers in the transport sector. What really gets my gripe on this is that it was a deliberate design feature of the previous government to keep wages down. For my electorate of Spence, where 74,000 people are going to get a bigger tax cut this year, they had to go through that period in 2013 when the then treasurer, Joe Hockey, along with the prime minister of the time—Abbott—decided to threaten GMH to walk away from car manufacturing. It left an absolute hole in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. It ripped carnage through my electorate. We were promised by Tony Abbott that there would be a new horizon and new job offerings, but they never came. We have some of the most disadvantaged people in the country in my electorate, earning some of the lowest wages, and to hear that there was a deliberate design feature to keep wages down is nothing short of appalling. It is absolutely disgusting that you can come into the chamber and think that that's okay.

These are people who today have received a $33.10 increase to their weekly pay packet. It's a significant increase and it makes a huge difference. I know there's a lot of joking that goes on in this place, but laughing about low- and middle-income earners who are doing it tough right now—it's no laughing matter. Every day, when I get up and get out in my electorate, I have to listen and talk to these people who are doing it tough. I am extremely proud of the work that our government has done over the last two years. There have been three consecutive pay rises under the annual wage review, and that has only been possible because of the advocacy of this government. The last increase, at 3.75 per cent, is significant.

I can hear the member for Riverina huffing and puffing. He does this to me all the time when I'm sitting in the chair! But the reality is that those people that are on low wages right now do need a lot more help, and that's what we are doing. That's why we have delivered bigger tax cuts under this government. That's why we advocated for an annual wage review increase above CPI. That's why we have been able to deliver it three times consecutively now. I'm extremely proud that that's what we've been able to achieve. That's what good Labor governments do: we deliver for working-class Australians, for mums and dads, for people doing it tough out there. So I do stand here as a proud member of a Labor government today, extremely proud of what we've been able to deliver in the way of tax cuts but equally as proud of delivering an increase of 3.75 per cent to some of the lowest-paid workers in this country both on the minimum wage and on awards. With that, I thank the House.

I rise to speak on this motion put forward by the member for Lalor, and, in doing so, I note that from today, 1 July 2024, the national minimum wage will increase to $915.90 per week, or $24.10 per hour, and award minimum wages will increase by 3.75 per cent. Other award wages, including junior apprentice and supported wages that are based on adult minimum wages, will get a proportionate increase. What Labor members don't understand—because not too many of them have ever run businesses—is that someone pays for that. Small business, like every other sector of the economy, are hurting at the moment. They're very much doing it tough, and those small-business owners and operators didn't get much, if any, relief in the recent federal budget handed down in May. They did get a slight increase in the instant asset write-off, but it is down considerably from what we'd put in place when we were in government.

I heard the Treasurer today in question time again—and I will say it—being deliberately misleading by saying that there was a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. Well, when Labor came to office in May 2022, there was nowhere near a trillion dollars worth of debt. It'll probably, ultimately, get to that under Labor. But we had had something called COVID-19 to deal with, and, despite the global pandemic, 1.1 million jobs were created since that global pandemic hit in 2020 and 11½ million Australians benefited from tax relief. There's been no mention of that. We talk a lot in here, and I hear Labor members talking about stage 3 tax cuts, but there's been no mention of stages 1 and 2. They were important to put into place. Of trade and exports, 71.3 per cent are covered by free trade agreements. We know that one in five—perhaps even as high as one in four in regional Australia—jobs are covered by an FTA. There were 815,600 female business operators, which is something that we should be very proud of as coalition members, and that was a figure from August 2021. That is significant—a record high of 220 trade apprentices.

Labor goes on ad nauseam—it's almost boring in its repetition—about the deliberate design feature of keeping wages low. I remember that interview by former Minister for Finance Senator Mathias Cormann as well, and there was no deliberate design feature. But what we were achieving with our economic policies was a balance. I heard the member for Spence say that I was a union member for 21 years. The fact that he can recall my exact number of years in a trade union movement is kinda scary, but, anyway, it's accurate. There is a balance between unions doing what they do in workplaces, employers being able to employ more people to be able to actually take home money themselves and people being paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. I don't think any of us in this parliament would dispute that, but it's about getting and achieving the right balance.

At the moment, we shouldn't be talking about minimum wages. We should be talking about real wages. Real wages are lower now than what they were when we lost office, and I'll tell you why. It's because the disposable income for the average everyday Australian is being eroded by higher power prices, by higher grocery bills and by the mere fact that the cost-of-living crisis is very much biting and hurting people, particularly in the regions. We've got a government which is paying farmers to stop farming. They've given $107 million to Western Australian sheep farmers to phase out the live exports.

Shame.

It is a shame, Member for Durack, and I see the member for O'Connor sitting there nodding in agreement too about the fact that this is a terrible piece of legislation. It won't just have effects in Western Australia; it will be right across the nation, because our farmers will be earning less. Our farmers are copping it in the neck all of the time. But this should not be a debate about minimum wages; it should be a debate about real wages and what Labor is doing to address the cost-of-living crisis which has come about on their watch.

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

by leave—On behalf of the member for Gippsland, I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) natural gas is a key pillar of the Australian economy which employs 80,000 people in the industry supply chain, largely in regional areas;

(b) natural gas is connected to more than five million Australian homes and provided 42 per cent of the energy consumed by the Australian manufacturing sector in 2022;

(c) natural gas is essential to Australia achieving its net zero target by 2050;

(d) Australia has a critical role in providing a reliable source of natural gas to trusted trading partners which rely on our supplies for energy security; and

(e) regional Australia has benefitted enormously from long-term investment in the natural gas sector;

(2) notes that:

(a) new natural gas supply is needed to meet energy demand and reduce emissions in Australia and overseas;

(b) natural gas shortfalls will severely impact energy security and add to cost of living pressures; and

(c) the natural gas sector provided $17.1 billion in taxes, royalties and charges in 2023-24 allowing governments to invest in critical services and public infrastructure; and

(3) urges the Government to take urgent action to provide policy certainty which allows the industry to bring on the new gas supply needed to address forecast shortfalls, ensure Australia's energy security, and rebuild investor confidence.

My very good friend the member for Gippsland is unwell today, so I send my best wishes, and I'm sure all of the people in the chamber would wish Darren all the best to overcome his ailments as quickly as possible and get back and join the fray.

This motion relates to the importance of gas, not only to our economy but, certainly, in terms of creating the energy that we need to maintain our society. As Western Australians, I and my very dear friend the excellent member for Durack, whose electorate hosts most of the major gas projects in this country, understand the importance of gas. Western Australians do tend to take gas somewhat for granted because we have plentiful gas. Under governments over the years—whether it be the Court government, back in the 1980s, when the gas fields were first being developed and the gas pipeline from Karratha or Dampier down to Bunbury was put in place—we've had plentiful gas, and it's generally been reasonably priced.

That's not the case on the east coast. Sadly, we've seen neglect or outright opposition to new gas projects coming online, and, of course, we're now seeing the result of those policies by governments of all stripes on the east coast, which are now starting to see gas running out, becoming short in supply and getting very expensive.

I wouldn't normally go to the Sydney Morning Herald to find out information on how important gas is, but, on the weekend, Mike Foley and Nick Toscano published an article in the Sydney Morning Herald where they said:

The east coast of Australia will need 13 gigawatts of new gas fired electricity generation—the equivalent of building 26 new gas plants—within the next 25 years …

This is how important gas is, and the reality is starting to bite home. This is not the journalists' opinion; this is the Australian Energy Market Operator's latest report that indicates that that level of gas is going to be required.

Of course, the Grattan Institute is also not a place I would normally go to find support for the gas sector. However, climate policy expert Tony Wood said that the government's policy to encourage more renewables, known as the Capacity Investment Scheme, risks leaving the grid in a mess because gas was excluded. These are policies which are being implemented at the moment and are going to have long-term implications for our economy and, as I say, our society, which relies on gas very heavily.

Just to touch on some of the numbers around gas, there's been $300 billion invested in gas projects, mostly in WA and Queensland. I wouldn't have thought there has been a lot in Victoria recently; they're relying on gas from other states to keep their lights on—not a lot of investment. Last year, the gas industry paid $17.1 billion in taxes, royalties and charges to support the sort of services that the people of Australia quite rightly expect—the hospitals, the NDIS and those sorts of services. It employs 80,000 people in very well paid jobs. We've heard in the previous debate about wages. I'll tell you what—if you're working in the gas sector in Western Australia, you're earning a pretty good wage.

It provides 42 per cent of energy used by the manufacturing sector in Australia. That's what we've got left of it. Unfortunately, sadly, we're seeing more and more manufacturing—particularly heavy manufacturing, which relies on affordable and reliable baseload power—closing up. Sadly, in my part of the world, we're seeing the nickel industry in serious trouble. Potentially, the nickel smelter in Kalgoorlie will be closed by BHP in the next month or two, at the cost of up to 3½ thousand jobs. As I said, this is the outcome of the policies that the current government and certainly some state governments have pursued for some time.

Finally, five million homes are connected to gas in this country. People will be getting home tonight and turning the gas heater on to keep the house warm if they can afford to. In Victoria, of course, you're not allowed to use gas anymore. We have to use electricity, but we don't quite know where that electricity's going to come from, particularly when people get home at six o'clock in the evening and the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Building towards a net zero Australia is not just about cleaner energy; it's also about ensuring that Australians have access to affordable energy. That's why the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia agenda is about supporting economic growth while also helping global efforts to reduce the effects of climate change, creating new jobs and industries while lowering household energy bills and our emissions.

Despite what those opposite would have you think, moving towards a renewable energy future is not just economically viable; it's economically essential. We know that Australia is rich with natural resources, including those needed for renewable energy generation, such as sunlight and wind. Failing to capture the value of these renewable resources simply doesn't make economic sense. Of course, as we transition towards a renewable net zero economy, we must also recognise the critical role that gas will play as a reliable and cost-effective bridge. With our Future Gas Strategy, the Albanese Labor government is committed to using gas to provide energy security, ensuring a smooth transition to a more renewable grid. In fact, the Albanese Labor government has taken significant action to shore up gas supply and manage price impacts. For example, we introduced a mandatory code of conduct which has secured more than 600 petajoules of domestic gas for east coast users until 2033.

Despite the member for Gippsland acknowledging in his motion that ensuring supply is critical for maintaining affordability, this is a measure that the coalition has voted against. It is the perfect example of the difference between the Albanese Labor government and those opposite when it comes to energy policy. While we are taking a reasoned approach informed by data and evidence, those opposite are driven by political convenience. While we are seeking to deliver cleaner and more affordable energy for Australians, those opposite are looking to deliver more handouts to gas companies. While we see gas as a necessary part of the transition, helping to firm renewables and drive costs down, those opposite see it as a chance to lock in fossil fuel for decades to come. Only the Albanese Labor government can drive a reasonable renewable energy transition across the economy backed up by firmed hydro, batteries and gas-fired power generation. Our plan will put downward pressure on energy bills and ensure the long-term stabilisation of energy prices for households and businesses throughout the transition.

While the Albanese Labor government have a strong plan for Australia's energy future, we also know that many households and small businesses are already feeling the pinch and need more immediate support as well. That's why, from today, every single Australian household will start to receive a $300 energy rebate, while eligible small businesses will receive a $325 rebate, all thanks to the Albanese Labor government's Energy Bill Relief Fund. This is the second round of energy bill relief that this Labor government has delivered, despite opposition from the Liberals opposite, who voted against it.

It would appear that a decade of inaction while in government wasn't enough for the Liberals. Now, even from the opposition benches, they continue to oppose the Albanese Labor government's efforts to clean up their mess. Perhaps they're embarrassed by this failed decade, or perhaps they simply aren't capable of understanding responsible energy policy. In any case, the Albanese Labor government won't let those opposite stand in our way as we drive towards an energy grid powered by cheaper renewable energy, to benefit all Australians. As we continue to work towards net zero emissions, our Future Gas Strategy will support our commitment, ensuring that energy remains reliable and, importantly, affordable for all Australians throughout this transition.

I gladly rise today to support this motion proposed by the member for Gippsland. As the federal member representing the Durack community, I am very proud to represent much of Western Australia's resources sector and natural gas production territory. I frequently meet with the sector and understand how critical gas is to Australia's economy today and into the future.

The natural gas supply chain employs 80,000 people across Australia, primarily in regional areas. In 2022, natural gas was connected to more than five million Australian homes and provided 42 per cent of the energy consumed by the Australian manufacturing sector. The sector also provided $17.1 billion in taxes, royalties and charges in 2023-24, allowing governments, state and federal, to invest in critical services and public infrastructure.

Unfortunately, under this government, we have seen the price of gas increase by 22.2 per cent, and the warnings of upcoming shortages are real. Shortages in a country that is as gas rich as ours—it's quite simply a joke. It's clear to everyone on this side of the House that we need more supply of gas, especially as we move away from coal supplies.

But it's not just Australian families who rely upon our natural gas. I'd like to remind the House that Australian natural gas is key to the energy markets of many of our major trading partners. Last year, Australian gas met 40 per cent of Japan's gas demand. Our gas is helping reduce their emissions as they shift away from coal and use our gas to manufacture green technologies. Countries like Japan have placed their trust in us to guarantee the future of our gas sector. I would like opponents of new LNG projects, like the Barossa LNG project or the Scarborough LNG project, to explain to me how such countries will meet their energy needs without our gas. It's quite ridiculous to think that such countries could take a renewables-only approach; instead, they would have to look to other sources. Goodness knows that reliance upon Russian energy is not the answer.

A coalition government will get Australia's gas sector back on track by slashing approval timeframes in half, without compromising on standards; we'll defund the Environmental Defenders Office; and we will commit to an annual release of offshore acreage for gas exploration and development. By supporting our gas sector, we will ensure that households and businesses can access affordable, reliable energy, and we'll stop Australian manufacturing jobs leaving the country due to gas shortages.

As a child of the Goldfields, I'm an advocate for the entire resources sector, and I was pleased to read in the Australian today that uranium exports are forecast to top $1 billion for the first time in 2023-24 and set to reach $1.7 billion in 2025-26. As the previous environment minister, I approved the last uranium mine in Western Australia. It was a good idea then and it is still a good idea today. Unfortunately, the WA Labor government introduced a ban on further mines, but I'm very pleased that the leader of the WA Liberal Party, Libby Mettam, has confirmed that, if elected, she will reverse the ban. I say, 'Hear, hear!' to that.

Given that our uranium is clearly good enough for the rest of the world, why shouldn't we move towards zero-emissions nuclear energy, using good Western Australian uranium? Currently, of the 20 largest economies, we are the only nation without nuclear power or plans to move towards it. I believe we need an 'all of the above' approach to energy. Renewables, gas and nuclear would create a well-balanced, affordable and reliable system.

I'll conclude by acknowledging that we have heard some encouraging words from the Minister for Resources regarding the future of gas; however, it must be said that the Future Gas Strategy, and the announcement that gas will remain an important source of energy through to 2050 and beyond, was not unanimously welcomed by those opposite. I have to say I have absolutely no confidence that Labor will keep its promises to the gas sector. What will happen to this commitment if they are thrown into minority government? This is what the Australian people need to think about. Our energy security is not something that we should play with.

Before I give the call to the member for Bruce, I will give an anticipatory warning to the members for Bruce, Moreton and Riverina to restrain yourselves during the next five minutes.

I'm very fond of those ones! I'm very fond of them. I even know who they are, unlike some of the ones who wander in here!

This is a strange little motion. It's largely statements of obvious fact:

(a) natural gas is a key pillar of the Australian economy which employs … people …

(b) natural gas is connected to more than five million Australian homes—

true—

(c) natural gas is essential to Australia achieving its net zero target by 2050—

tick—

(d) Australia has a critical role in providing a reliable source of natural gas to trusted trading partners—

tick—

(e) regional Australia has benefitted enormously—

And so on. That's lovely. That's good, isn't it? Then there's this wacky plot twist when you get to part (3), which drifts into comedic irony. I couldn't call them hypocritical. I could note gross hypocrisy. That's okay in the Fed Chamber. We've done this a lot before. It's okay. It's a comment on the substance of the matter. But, anyway, we won't go there. We'll stay with 'comedic irony'. The motion:

(3) urges the Government to take urgent action to provide policy certainty which allows the industry to bring on the new gas supply needed to address forecast shortfalls, ensure Australia's energy security, and rebuild investor confidence.

Policy certainty, ensuring Australia's energy security and rebuilding investor confidence? Let's have a little chat about those things. First is policy certainty. Let's be clear. Every sensible economist, every energy analyst, every investor and every energy company says—and everyone except those opposite knows—that the No. 1 reason for rising energy prices in this country over the last decade has been a complete lack of policy certainty. The latest brain fart of an energy policy from these champions of the private sector is to borrow untold hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, reinventing socialism in their nuclear power fantasy. The No. 1 reason that we haven't had private sector investment in new supply is that, for nine miserable years, they couldn't tell the investors what the rules were. Here's a free tip for those giants of capitalism opposite. The private sector need to know the rules to make an investment. Instead, in this decade of decay, division, dysfunction and despair, they had 22 different energy policies. They've just released their 23rd, making 23 in a decade—genius! There was no investment because of the lack of rules.

If we're going to talk about certainty, under their watch 24 of Australia's coal-fired power stations announced they were going to close, and they did nothing. AEMO and the ACCC consistently warned about the risk of gas supply shortfalls. Ironically, the coalition put out press releases welcoming the rise in investment here and there in renewable energy, all of which flowed because of the targets put in place by the former Rudd and Gillard Labor government. That is what led to renewable energy. Pretty much the only new energy they got investment in was because of the Rudd and Gillard government. Energy for them was just a culture war.

The member for Gippsland—and I do wish him well in his recovery—is a real authority on gas. He was a cabinet minister in that train wreck of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Remember the gas-fired recovery, Deputy Speaker? It was a failed policy that directed millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to their gas industry mates, with literally nothing to show for it. They had 22 energy policies—now 23. They dropped the resources minister out of the cabinet. If you were going to have an emoji for that, would it be 'face palm' or 'head explode'? Actually, what I just said isn't quite true, is it? They had a secret resources minister in the cabinet, the former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. He had a secret portfolio that he told no-one about.

An honourable member: Busy boy!

He was. They changed the rules before they left government, to cover up the price rises. It was an absolute disgrace.

But I'll tell you what you don't do if you want policy certainty and energy security in Australia and to rebuild investor confidence. You don't whack investor confidence with a ridiculous, risky nuclear fantasy—the most expensive form of new power. Their plan is to push up our prices in about 20 years when they get around to building something. It's genius, isn't it? It's too expensive and it's too slow. And you know what? It's not even a policy. It's a pamphlet. It's four pages with a picture of a Rolls-Royce nuclear power plant they cut and pasted from the internet. Imagine if Labor had released a policy with no costings and a picture from the internet. Unbelievable.

The most damaging impact, though, ironically—we'll end where we started—is the impact on investor confidence because of this mob's behaviour.

It's wonderful to see the member for Bruce and those opposite are committed to gas. It is good to see. As a candidate, the rhetoric before the election wasn't quite as strong, but they're there now. They've seen the value in gas. It is wonderful to see. I look forward to them continuing to support the industry moving forward, although I do note that, when the resources minister made her announcement, a few of those opposite were very nervous about that decision and there were a few that did decide to speak out. I will watch with interest when more bills come up on gas, particularly if they look to restrict gas, given we've seen the newfound freedom that the caucus has to speak out and potentially cross the floor if they don't agree with something. So it's good to see those opposite passionately defending gas. Hopefully, their colleagues who criticised the decision at the time will rethink what they do.

We cannot get to net zero by 2050 without a combination of everything being on the table. As a coalition, we've talked about a renewables-gas-coal transition to renewables-gas-nuclear to make sure we have that base-load power. We hear those opposite talk about investor certainty. Just 50 metres from here, the Tech Council of Australia are having their tech showcase. I was talking to one of the data centre companies there—I've spoken to many data centre companies across the country in the last two years in this role—about the need for greater energy supply because data centres take a lot of energy. AI, as a new technology, requires significant amounts of energy. That's before we include population growth coming in to the country and manufacturing continuing to grow—hopefully; it's struggling under this government but will need to continue to grow.

Those opposite should understand that investors know there will be greater demand for energy. We will need every lever. We will need renewables absolutely. We will need gas absolutely. We will continue to need to look at nuclear and be prepared to have a mature conversation, because as many scientists, including Alan Finkel, the former Chief Scientist, have said, nuclear power is the only zero emissions, base-load, reliable power that exists at scale in this country. Hydroelectricity is not possible at scale in this country because of our geography and topography. The reason gas is also so important in that mix is that it provides peaking power that can come on. For many industries, including an industry I was lucky to work in—the food manufacturing industry—prior to politics, there is no energy source other than gas that can be used to cook the food, to cook the chips, to cook many of the products. Industry needs gas. So it is wonderful to see those opposite are now on board.

But there are a couple of concerns, particularly about the price of gas. In Victoria we have a state Labor government that are opposed to gas, and they argue openly with federal Labor. Hopefully, federal Labor can start to get control of state Labor. These are the consequences of not having enough gas in the industry. I want to quote from a local resident of mine, Cecil, who emailed me. He said: 'Just received our gas bill. Double the price. Now $582. How does this PM in Canberra think pensioners are going to stop from freezing this winter? The last thing I want to hear from him is "I know things are tough at the moment."'

So many in my community rely on gas for energy, but they also rely on it in an emergency and to build redundancy into the system. I'm concerned about this push for electrification of all houses and of all networks. In June 2021, my community was devastated by the June storms, which left my family and me without power for three weeks. But that was nothing; many in my community were without power for three months. But I know for a fact because I lived it. We could stay in our home because we had gas. We had a gas cooker and gas hot water and we were able to get a small generator to give us a little bit of power at night for the lights.

That's why we continue to need gas in the system. We're going to electrify houses and, with EVs, there will be more demand. There will be so much pressure on the electricity system moving forward that all options need to be on the table. The government is not prepared to have a mature, visionary conversation and look 10, 20 or 30 years into the future.

I thank the member for Gippsland for his motion on the importance of natural gas. Like the member for Riverina, I wish the member for Gippsland all the best. I will miss him tomorrow morning when the mighty Queensland parliamentary team takes on the New South Wales team—

No, the member for Gippsland won't be turning out for Queensland, but I note that the member for Casey, as a good Victorian, will be turning out for Queensland. I look forward to him being an honorary Queenslander tomorrow!

This motion gives me an opportunity to talk about Labor's forward-thinking Future Gas Strategy and our commitment to net zero by 2050. I mention this international commitment as the Leader of the Opposition has no intention of keeping this promise. Never mind that the effects of climate change have caused a global crisis. Never mind that we need to achieve net zero to keep our planet livable. Unlike those opposite, the Albanese Labor government is serious about climate change. We are working towards our aim to reduce our carbon emissions by 43 per cent, or better, by 2030. We must achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or before—many scientists say before. We're also working hard towards a target of 82 per cent renewable energy in our grid by 2030. The more renewables, the cheaper for Moreton households their electricity bills will be. We know that. When you drive around my community, you see solar panels on nearly every other house.

While Labor takes positive action, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be hanging everything on the idea of being able to provide a nuclear power station in two decades time or more. After 22 or 23 failed energy policies, it's sad that this is the best the coalition can come up with—it's sort of the poor man's culture wars, I guess. It would be laughable if it weren't so delusional and so serious. The only renewable energy that the member for Dickson seems to believe in is ignorance. There are no details about how much nuclear will cost hardworking Australians. The coalition need to come clean about how much their nuclear policy will end up costing and how they intend to get around state legislation banning nuclear power. Obviously, they can nationalise the sites—the Constitution does provide for that, if just terms are paid—and then they can co-opt Homer Simpson into the Commonwealth Public Service to run the reactors out in the bush or wherever they will be. What could possibly go wrong?

Instead of building castles in the air that look like cooling towers, which is the opposition plan, Labor is focused on the cheapest form of energy: renewables, firmed-up renewables and even more renewables. Under Labor, we've had a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the grid, record investment in batteries and storage, and over 330,000 rooftop solar installations last year alone. We've green-lit more than 50 renewable projects since the last election and we're already halfway to meeting our 2030 emissions reduction target in the national grid.

Where does gas fit into this, as per the member's motion? Gas is the bridge to net zero. Why? Because you can instantly turn gas off and on, unlike coal and unlike nuclear. Labor's Future Gas Strategy acknowledges that, although the role of gas must change, gas must be available and affordable. It has a key role to play in our transition to net zero. It provides energy security for homes, for industry and for jobs right now, as our grid slowly changes. The strategy is evidence based and does not invest taxpayer money in gas operations. It states our commitment to net zero by 2050 and affirms that gas must remain affordable for Australians during this transition period. The strategy acknowledges that new sources of gas supply will be needed to support demand throughout the transition and that gas and electricity markets must adapt and remain fit for purpose. New gas fields supplying LNG must be carbon neutral from the start of operations. They've been given a zero baseline allocation for the reservoir CO2 in their new fields. As coal-fired power stations across the country shut down—this is very old capital, obviously—a mix of renewables, storage and gas will be used to ensure ongoing supply. We envisage that gas-powered electricity generation will be used to meet, particularly, peak demand events—a very cold night; or State of Origin half-time, when everyone in Queensland and New South Wales goes out at the one time to turn their kettles on. While we're working towards this transition, and as coal-fired power plants go offline, it's crucial that we do not suffer from power blackouts or astronomical energy bills or have to close down manufacturing plants that rely on gas. That would not be a realistic approach to our country's energy demands.

I very much take pleasure in speaking on this motion brought to the parliament by the member for Gippsland, who is unwell, as we've heard. He will be back tomorrow; don't worry. But it is with great pleasure that I follow the members for O'Connor, Durack and Casey on the coalition side, arguing about the merits of gas. There were some parts of the member for Moreton's contribution that I very much agreed with, but he ought to know that, under those nine years of the coalition government, one in four homes had rooftop solar. That was the highest take-up in the world of rooftop solar. Electricity bills were actually down. We made gas affordable. We made power achievable. Indeed, the price of gas is up 22.2 per cent under Labor. That is simply not good enough from a government which purports to put in place a made-in-Australia manufacturing policy. Industry requires gas and is going to need gas in large volumes to make sure that we do have 'a future made in Australia'. Households are going to require more and more gas because, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow and the batteries do not have sufficient capacity to store the power, then something has got to give, and we can't have our grid collapsing and failing at a time of importance.

Legislation passed in this place just last December meant that unconventional gas production, including from the Northern Territory's Beetaloo basin, a vital source of gas, was going to require new approvals from the Commonwealth after the government brought forward its plans to expand the so-called water trigger. Of course, once this came up, the Greens couldn't wait to get out and take credit for it. But the expanded trigger was very much opposed by the mining industry, which was very nervous and very worried about what the government was proposing and bringing forward. Samantha McCulloch from industry group Australian Energy Producers said that the updated water trigger legislation would create 'unnecessary duplication' and added that it would offer 'another barrier to unlocking gas supply'. She said:

Changes passed by the Senate last night pre-empted proper process and consultation under the ongoing reform of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

We know that power bills have increased by $1,000 more than what the Albanese government promised. We know that 90 per cent of base-load electricity—predominantly coal-fired power stations—is coming to the end of life over the next decade. We know that gas is going to fill a large part of that shortfall, or should do. I invite the member for Moreton to pick up the phone to some of his Victorian Labor colleagues, because they want gas taken out of the network holus-bolus.

Australians are currently paying some of the highest electricity prices in the world, up to 56c per kilowatt hour. The government's target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030 requires 4.5 gigawatts of additional large-scale wind and solar every year. Last year, less than one-third of this was delivered. All politics is local. In my local area, at the Wagga Wagga City Council in May this year the Greens councillor Jenny McKinnon had a bit of a try-on. We know there are local government elections this September. She put a motion to phase out the use of gas in the city. The Wagga Wagga distribution network is a gas distribution pipeline located in southern New South Wales, of course. The pipeline is owned by Australian Gas Networks and approximately 690 kilometres in length. It's a big system. But, interestingly, Councillor McKinnon's motion lapsed due to a lack of a seconder, and that was the appropriate and right way for it to go.

We need more gas in the system. The Western Australians got it right when they put a gas reserve in place. We need to be sure that we have gas for exports and gas for domestic supply. If we're going to have a future made in Australia, then we need more gas, and the government needs to address this.

I also rise this evening to speak on the member for Gippsland's motion. We wish him a speedy return. This motion is weak on substance and rich in irony, as the member for Bruce suggested. The irony is, of course, that the member for Gippsland was in the ministry for much of the last decade and had input, or potentially a lack of input, into nearly a decade of 22 failed energy policies. Indeed, the member must wake up each and every morning with a big sigh of relief that it's the Albanese government in charge of stewarding the transition of our energy system and not those opposite.

Since coming to government, the Albanese government has taken immediate and strong action to shore up gas supply and manage price impacts by introducing the mandatory code of conduct, strengthening the Australian domestic gas supply mechanism and releasing the Future Gas Strategy. That's right—the motion calls for certainty on our natural gas policy, and to that I remind the chamber that we have strengthened certainty with the release of the Future Gas Strategy. Our Future Gas Strategy is taking a reasoned approach informed by data and evidence. We aren't spending millions of taxpayer dollars on fossil fuel projects. In fact, we aren't investing in gas projects or infrastructure at all. That's the job of the private sector.

This government understands that gas will play a changing role in Australia's energy transformation as we move to renewables. Coal is retiring, and we are well on our way to renewables, but in the meantime gas provides energy security because it makes intermittent sources like wind and solar stable and firm. That's why gas is described as a transition fuel. It's an enabler of the transition. We must ensure that the lights stay on, but for much of the last decade the opposition policy has had an approach of keeping the lights on while no-one has been at home. In the long term, gas will mostly be used in hard-to-abate sectors, such as cementmaking, brickmaking, glass manufacturing and minerals processing. Gas use will need to be decarbonised where possible and abated where not.

Our Future Gas Strategy is driven by net zero because this government is committed to net zero. Principle 1 of the Future Gas Strategy is this:

Australia is committed to supporting global emissions reductions to reduce the impacts of climate change and will reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Our reforms to the safeguard mechanism will drive down emissions across a range of emissions-intensive oil and gas operations covering the emissions of 130 resources sector facilities. New gas fields supplying LNG facilities have been given a zero-baseline allocation for the reservoir CO2 in their new fields. This is law. This means that gas from new offshore fields will be carbon neutral from the start. Since this government came to office, there's been a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national energy market, and this has driven both total emissions and emissions intensity to all-time record lows.

The coalition's gas led recovery was not underpinned by any sound evidence or analysis. All the coalition did was hand out taxpayer money to the gas industry and threaten to use big sticks. We on this side know that the energy transition will be complex and that the scale of the challenge is immense. We are starting 10 years behind because of the total inaction of those opposite. At the moment, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Gippsland are giving us an easy choice. Do we want renewables firmed by gas and batteries or do we want uncosted, untimely nuclear power? After 10 years of no policy, their current policy approach, policy approach No. 23, is based on climate denial and nuclear fantasy.

Gas plays a critical role in Australia's economy. It's also an important part of Australia's future, because it will enable us to compete successfully in the global race for jobs and opportunities in a net zero world. But the global shift to clean energy is Australia's biggest opportunity for growth and prosperity, and the member for Gippsland and his party should come on board and back it.

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that on Monday, 1 July 2024, every Australian household will receive $300 in energy bill relief and small businesses will receive $325 off their energy bills; and

(2) acknowledges the Government's number one priority is to tackle the cost of living pressures facing Australians by ensuring they earn more and keep more of what they earn.

Today is 1 July, and, from today, Australians will start to see more energy bill relief coming their way: power bill rebates of $300 for every household and $325 for one million small businesses. All 65,000 homes in my community of Jagajaga, from Bundoora and Watsonia to Eltham and Research, from Macleod to Heidelberg West and Ivanhoe—every household—will receive a $300 power bill rebate, starting from today, and so will every household right across Australia. One million small businesses, Australia-wide, will receive a $325 power bill rebate too, delivering direct support for small businesses, including the 14,000 small businesses in Jagajaga. If you're a homeowner or a small business owner, you will see this energy bill relief applied directly to the bills you receive from your energy provider over the course of this financial year. You don't have to do anything. You will see this money being applied—being taken off your bill.

This builds on the work we did earlier, in our last budget, to give energy bill relief for certain households. With this measure, we are extending that relief to every Australian household. For Victorians, for people in Jagajaga, our government's energy bill relief builds on successive rounds of the Victorian government's Power Saving Bonus, another great program that helps people in my community save money and, at the same time, ensure that they are getting the best possible deal on their energy bills. This is work we are doing to directly support Australians, because we know that times are difficult at the moment. We know that costs are high, and we are directly supporting households with $300 off their energy bill.

We also know that those opposite didn't want this. In fact, when they had the opportunity, they voted against measures that would have kept power bills lower. So we know where their loyalties lie. They don't lie with providing cost-of-living relief. They don't lie with keeping power bills lower. They lie elsewhere, not with Australians who need the support right now.

This energy bill relief is just one part of a whole suite of our government's cost-of-living support rolling out from today: tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer; a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian; a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers; more funding to build more homes in every part of the country; and—this one is a personal favourite of mine—an additional two weeks of paid parental leave to kick in. That builds on work our government has already done to make child care cheaper and to expand fee-free TAFE, and, of course, our biggest-ever investment in bulk-billing. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by a further 15 per cent. We've wiped almost $3 billion in student debt.

This is real cost-of-living relief. It is tangible. It is for every person in Jagajaga and it is for every person across this country, because, as I have said, our government understands that this is a difficult time for many Australians. We are doing the work we want to do and we need to do, to support Australians at this difficult time. We know that there is still more work to be done. We are working hard to deliver on our economic plan, helping Australians right now with the measures that I have just outlined, while also being very clear that we are working on bringing down inflation and planning for the future—particularly with our Future Made in Australia plan, to manufacture more here and make sure we get the benefits of the transition to clean energy in this country.

I am very pleased that from today, 1 July, people in my community will start to see the rollout of our government's latest measures to help with the cost of living. All 77,000 taxpayers in Jagajaga will receive a tax cut, with an average tax cut in our community of $1,782. Our plan delivers a bigger tax cut for lower- and middle-income earners while ensuring that everyone still receives a tax cut. Plus, we're increasing the Medicare levy for low-income thresholds. One million taxpayers will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy or pay a reduced levy rate. As I've said, from today people will start to see that energy bill relief applied directly to their bills, with $300 off those bills, and $325 off for small businesses. This is real, direct, tangible support. This is supporting Australians with cost-of-living relief.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

In question time today I asked the Prime Minister a very serious question about Capital Brewing Co, a local success story. He took me up on the regionality of that. Given my boundary changes—many of us in New South Wales are experiencing electorate boundary changes, and I'm no different—my electorate will now wrap right around the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, after these new changes, Riverina, if you look at it from the start of Federation, will now have bordered four different states or territories in its time. I think it would just about be the only electorate to do that. There was a very serious question from the Managing Director and Co-founder of Capital Brewing Co, Laurence Kain. Their energy costs have risen and are out of control. Their electricity bill has got up $4½ thousand a month, to $12,000 per month, over the past two years. The Prime Minister gave a very dismissive answer. Capital Brewing Co has made investments, as I understand, in Batlow Cider and that burgeoning industry, and that is good. Of course, Batlow is currently in Eden-Monaro but is soon to be back in the Riverina, as it was between 2010 and 2016.

But the trouble we've got with the energy mix is that Labor has an 'all eggs in the one basket' approach. It's renewables only, and it defies engineering and economics. We have to avoid and abandon this ideological approach at all costs. We need a network grid with balance, and that balance should include gas. We've got the Victorian state government trying to prevent and stop all gas in homes. If we've got a federal Labor Party determined to proceed with its Future Made in Australia manufacturing plan, then we have to have affordable, reliable, available gas. We have to open up opportunities in the Beetaloo Basin. We have to have more exploration and investment in Western Australia, Queensland and, for that matter, Victoria, because gas does provide many of the answers.

We should have a rational, national discussion about nuclear; we can't afford not to. Indeed, if we're going to get to net zero by 2050, as is our nation's desire, then we have to have nuclear in that balance. But let's have the discussion, with carefully considered costings and locations. Let's have a discussion about the viability of nuclear, not just, as the member for Moreton said in the last debate, these silly Homer Simpson references and that type of immaturity. Let's have a clear discussion with experts in the field, making sure everybody has their say. We appreciate that coal-fired power plants are exiting the system and that we do need to have renewables in the mix—we know that.

In this motion, the member for Jagajaga talks about how there is going to be a $325 reduction, but this is just a nonsense when you consider the costs of everything. It's $325 off just your power bills, for goodness sake. We've got rent up, food up, power up, education up and health costs up. Everything is just going up and up.

She talked about child care—it's fantastic, talking about the affordability of child care. I'm sure the member for Calare would agree with me: it's not just about affordability; it's about availability in regional areas. It is about availability, because many of our mums and dads who want to get into the workforce are just crying out for childcare centres. It's actually getting harder and tougher on Labor's watch.

The member for Jagajaga addressed bulk-billing too, but bulk-billing rates have slumped markedly from 88 to 77 per cent under Labor. When we talk about bulk-billing, we had the health minister Mark Butler say, 'If you can't get a doctor to bulk-bill, well, just find another one.' That ain't easy in regional Australia—trust me.

The No. 1 focus for this government is cost of living. We are focused on ensuring cost-of-living relief for all Australians, but we're also very focused on ensuring that this does not drive up inflation. Providing cost-of-living relief in ways that are meaningful but not inflationary is difficult but not impossible, and the Treasurer has ensured a raft of measures that provide relief for most, if not all, Australians, and in multiple ways for many of them. We understand that family budgets are tight and that the impact of cost-of-living pressures and inflation are being felt around kitchen tables across the country, and that's why we delivered substantial cost-of-living relief in the budget.

We've delivered a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer and bigger tax cuts for more workers. From 1 July, 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut, with the average worker getting a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year. Importantly, this includes those on lower incomes—unlike the stage 3 tax cuts designed by those opposite, which specifically ignored those on low incomes. Australian workers on the minimum wage or low incomes have got significant pay rises under this government. They are also getting a tax cut, because Labor wants Australian workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

By contrast, the Liberals and Nationals didn't want Australians on low incomes to get a pay rise, and they didn't want them to get a tax cut. This group of Australian workers that they don't care about includes many young Australian workers and an overrepresentation of women. Ninety-eight per cent of young workers are better off under Labor's tax cuts, and 90 per cent of women are better off under Labor's tax cuts, compared to the tax cuts of those opposite.

Some of the other cost-of-living measures coming into effect on 1 July include $300 in energy bill relief for every household and $325 for one million small businesses. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by a further 15 per cent, taking the total increase to 25 per cent, which makes it the first back-to-back increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in three decades. Treasury estimates that our energy bill relief and Commonwealth rent assistance changes will directly reduce inflation by half a percentage point in 2024-25 and will not add to the broader inflationary pressures, because Labor are good economic managers: producing back-to-back surpluses, paying down debt, turning inflation around from the 6.1 per cent we inherited from those opposite, and keeping unemployment at record lows. We've also seen 880,000 jobs created since we came to government—a new record for a government in their first term.

There's still a lot of work to do, but the record of those opposite—back-to-back deficits for nine years; almost a trillion dollars of debt, with not much to show for it; rising inflation; energy prices they had to change regulations to hide before the election—shows the contrast.

We heard the previous speaker say that they want to have a rational debate on nuclear. They have no costings, and no investor will touch it. It's such a good proposition! It's not, really.

Anyway, back to our cost-of-living measures: we've wiped almost $3 billion in student debt, helping more than three million, mostly younger, Australians, with the average worker saving around $1,200. We've also changed the way HECS is calculated so that it will never again go up faster than wages growth. We've provided up to $3 billion to make medicines cheaper, freezing the maximum cost of PBS prescriptions for everyone. That's on top of the 60-day prescriptions, where you get two months of medication for the price of one month. The Liberals already said no to cheaper medicines, no to energy bill relief, no to tax cuts and no to 60-day prescriptions. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said they would roll back the tax cuts. When it comes to cost of living, the Liberals always say no. Their negativity is no substitute for economic credibility, and their record shows where they stand.

We are getting on with rolling out billions of dollars of cost-of-living relief that's carefully calibrated to take some of the edge off the pressures that people are under. We've done all this at the same time as we are expecting to deliver back-to-back surpluses for the first time in two decades, overseeing wages picking up in growth to the fastest in 15 years and an earlier-than-expected return to annual real wage growth.

Once again I have to go to my regular fact-check and remind those opposite not to take the Treasurer's talking points for granted. Our net debt was actually $517 billion when those opposite came to power, and about 30 per cent of that net debt was actually accrued during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. They continue to spin this mistruth, which really sums up those opposite. It's all about political spin. It's all about running a line. If you have to keep telling people the cost of living is your No. 1 priority, it's clear that it's not and it's clear that the Australian people know that. Less spin and more delivery would be good.

This motion is very brave. It's very brave for those opposite to talk about energy prices. It's very light on as well: two points. Normally we see from the government, when they put in their motions, that there are four or five points and lots of subpoints. This is very light on. What it's missing is some detail. It's missing the number 275. It's missing the promise that the Prime Minister made 97 times before the election that they were going to reduce energy prices by $275. He also made that promise 30 times after Ukraine was invaded by Russia, yet when he was elected, he then defended not meeting his word and breaking his promise on energy by referencing the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, again showing that this government is all about spin, not about delivering for the Australian people.

What's actually happening with the electricity prices? Why do those opposite need to subsidise electricity prices? It's because it's up 21.5 per cent since the Albanese Labor government came to power. That means that households are paying more, businesses are paying more, community groups and charities are paying more. But let's be very clear: it's not just their power bills that they are paying more for. Every time you go to the grocery store, you are paying more. When you buy something at the supermarket, you are paying more because, when energy goes up, it impacts every level of the supply chain.

I was fortunate enough to spend over a decade working in fast-moving consumer goods, supplying products to Woolworths and Coles supermarkets. When energy goes up, as I said, it hits everything. It's not just the finished product. Keeping it cold at Woolworths and Coles costs more. Their energy costs more. Delivering it to the store costs more. For the supplier, their energy costs go up. Their cost of manufacturing goes up. Their raw materials go up because the farmer or the supplier that gives them the raw materials has to increase their prices. That is why it's so important that you get energy prices down, because every point along the supply chain is impacted. That's why, when you go to the store, you're seeing prices go up 10, 20 or 30 per cent. It's why you need to have a plan to address cost of living, which those opposite don't have.

But we also hear those opposite talk about costing. They're not prepared to have a mature conversation about nuclear power and the importance of the only zero emissions, baseload, scalable technology that we have in Australia. They talk about the opposition's costings, but they won't talk about their lack of costings. The Capacity Investment Scheme that the government announced last year puts a floor under electricity prices for renewables companies. It does, in fairness to them, put a ceiling on the profits they can make, but that floor is going to cost the Australian taxpayer money. Australian taxpayers are subsidising renewable energies, which is okay, but don't lecture us about no costings when you have not provided the cost for the Capacity Investment Scheme. That is going to cost billions of dollars of taxpayer money, but they're not prepared to release the costings on that. The transition has not been costed by those opposite.

So they talk about our nuclear plan. The opposition leader has said very clearly that we'll go through the locations and have a mature conversation. It would be nice if those opposite spent less time putting memes up of The Simpsons on social media and actually had an honest conversation with the Australian public, because everything impacts that supply chain, as I said, and demand is continuing to go up, whether it's immigration—more people in the country—AI or data centres. We're electrifying homes and we're moving to EVs. There is going to be so much demand on the electricity system. You need renewables, you need gas and you need nuclear to bring prices down and put more supply into the market. (Time expired)

We are now drawing towards the end of 1 July, a day that has seen millions of Australians waking up to earning more, keeping more of what they earn and, for millions more still, receiving the benefit of a number of measures that our government has put in place in order to provide families across Australia with targeted, measured cost-of-living relief.

From today, millions of Australians, 10 million households and one million small businesses will receive a $300 and a $325 rebate for their power bills, respectively. This was done as part of a $3½ billion package to provide energy bill relief as widely as possible and is one of a number of measures, as part of our recent budget, that are squarely aimed at easing cost-of-living pressures for millions of Australians—measures squarely designed to make life easier for families doing it tough whilst at the same time not shifting those pressures onto inflation.

Those opposite have had a crack at reducing power bills for Australians both in government and in opposition—something that, in both cases, is a mirage. We all remember the member for Hume's big attempt at keeping power prices down under the Morrison government. Quite simply, you just need to be aware that the prices are about to rise before an election, with the Australian Energy Regulator about to deliver its default market offer. This offer contains an inconvenient truth that might interfere with yet another one of your confected narratives about what a Liberal-National government means. So what do you do about it? You simply delay the release of the new and increased energy prices contained in the default market offer until after the election. Are they going up? Are they going down? Well, until they are released to the public, you might as well call it Schrodinger's power prices. You can only know what's happening with any certainty once you peek inside the box. In opposition, they make hiding the power prices from the public look like child's play.

Speaking of child's play, those opposite put out a thought bubble not just to be an answer in Australia reaching net zero by 2050 but also to reduce power prices and firm up base-load capacity. A year and a half after this thought bubble, they release the detail of this policy on a 4½-page pamphlet—real paper, real ink and real staples but not a real solution. They would have the Australian people believe another one of their furphies that somehow nuclear power is a panacea to Australia's future power generation, despite no credible evidence existing of this working, the numbers stacking up and the costings panning out. Not a single major player in Australia's energy industry, renewables or otherwise, had been asking for it.

If nuclear power made sense, you would have companies owning power-generating assets clamouring at the gates to repeal it, but, instead, the new Liberal Party way is to shun these companies and say that they don't know what they're talking about and to bring government back into the power generation game. On the one hand, if they hadn't, Australia would be paying more for their power through the cost recovery of building one of these plants in the next couple of decades once it is built—unless you believe that they can somehow believe the Leader of the Opposition that he would be able to get it done at a world-record pace. Maybe he knows a guy in the nuclear reactor building business that operates out of a small shack with 50 grand in the bank. I'm sure he'd award them a contract. It's what he did as home affairs minister. It's all he knows.

When the CSIRO and AEMO released their GenCost report saying that nuclear power is going to be more expensive, I'd be listening to them rather than shrugging that off. It's very easy to dispute modelling when you aren't releasing yours—if any modelling even exists to underpin the 4½ pages of policy. Meanwhile, the opposition wants to continue to place a mirage of nuclear power in front of Australia, disputing science and scientists because of vibes alone and turning this into some twisted form of 'Australia's next top modelling'.

The Albanese Labor government is continuing to invest in a future that includes firm renewables along with gas. We are investing in cost-of-living relief for all Australians in our budget, and, when it comes to this nuclear pipedream, we are investing in the intelligence of the Australian people to know exactly what the Liberal and National parties are actually doing every time they enter into the energy debate saying that they are for renewable energy.

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

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30