Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (09:25): by leave—I move:

That further statements on the twentieth anniversary of the banning of asbestos be permitted in the Federation Chamber.

Question agreed to.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (09:46): by leave—I move:

That further statements on backing charities and building community be permitted in the Federation Chamber.

Question agreed to.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (09:52): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

These bills would abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new and much improved Administrative Review Tribunal.

In doing so, these bills represent the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades.

Effective administrative review is critical to Australia's system of government.

A strong, user-focused administrative review body provides an avenue for community members to seek independent review of government decisions that have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on their lives.

This function is critical to protecting the rights and interests of individuals and organisations, including the most vulnerable members of our community.

And critically, high-quality review of government decision-making can—and, if this bill is enacted, will—encourage better quality decision-making across government.

Background

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal commenced on 1 July 1976, following reports by the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee in 1971 and the Committee on Administrative Directions in 1973.

The Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee report, in particular, recognised the need for individuals to be able to challenge a growing range of government decisions, and recommended the creation of a comprehensive and 'essentially Australian' system of administrative law.

In the second reading speech for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill 1975, then Attorney-General, the Hon. Kep Enderby QC, outlined the intention to establish a single independent tribunal and a vision of the AAT as the main tribunal for Commonwealth administrative review.

The foundational principles of administrative review are as relevant today as they were in 1976. An independent person 'stepping into the shoes' of the original decision-maker still lies at the core of merits review. The objective of ensuring that government reaches decisions that are correct or preferable is, and remains, the goal.

Unfortunately, the AAT no longer enjoys the trust and confidence of the Australian community it serves, and is not fit-for-purpose. The previous government's record of appointing dozens of individuals from the same political party to the AAT is well known.

However, the AAT's problems extend beyond the absence of a merit based selection process under the former government.

Government inherited an AAT that is not on a sustainable financial footing, that is beset by delays and a large and growing backlog of applications, and an AAT that is operating multiple and ageing electronic case management systems—a legacy of the poorly executed amalgamation of multiple tribunals into the AAT in 2015.

The government also inherited an AAT that is no longer taken seriously—or, at least, seriously enough—by government departments and agencies. As the robodebt royal commission highlighted, the AAT made hundreds of decisions that the approach to calculating and raising debts under the scheme was unlawful—but those decisions, and their obvious implications, were ignored and ultimately buried.

In developing this package of legislation, the government has had the opportunity to look at the original vision for the AAT afresh, and consider how it can best be realised now and into the future.

We have the benefit of nearly 50 years of experience since the AAT was established and multiple reviews—old and new—into the AAT and the administrative review system more generally.

We have drawn on the knowledge and wisdom of an expert advisory group. That group is led by former High Court Justice, the Honourable Patrick Keane AC KC, and comprises Ms Rachel Amamoo, Professor Anna Cody (now the Sex Discrimination Commissioner), Emeritus Professor Robin Creyke AO, Emeritus Professor Ron McCallum AO, Former Federal Court Justice, the Honourable Alan Robertson SC, and Emeritus Professor Cheryl Saunders AO.

And over the course of the last year, the Attorney-General's Department has undertaken significant consultation with AAT staff and members, AAT users, peak bodies, legal assistance providers, advocates and other experts.

This package of legislation is transformative. It is ambitious and comprehensive—we are building an institution that is intended to serve the community and drive better decisions for many years to come.

Consultation has provided the government with an in-depth understanding of what does not work within the current system.

The outcome of this process is legislation that aims to create a unified, cohesive tribunal with flexible powers and procedures that best meet the needs of applicants.

We are proposing to create an adaptive framework with flexibility for the tribunal to continuously improve its operation, and to support best practice across its entire caseload.

Of course, not all problems can be fixed by legislation. Close attention will be given to implementation, practice, monitoring and evaluation to ensure ongoing improvement into the future.

Today I am introducing two bills:

the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the primary bill, to establish the new Administrative Review Tribunal and the Administrative Review Council, and

the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) (Consequential and Transitional Bill) 2023, to abolish the AAT, make consequential amendments to 138 Commonwealth acts, which collectively represent about 93 per cent of the AAT's caseload, and transition AAT staff, operations, and matters across to the new tribunal.

A second consequential and transitional bill will be introduced early next year. The amendments in that second bill will be predominantly minor and technical updates to a range of Commonwealth Acts, which collectively represent approximately seven per cent of the AAT's caseload, and will include amendments requiring consultation with states and territories.

The bill sets out the objective of the new tribunal, which will guide its operations and the actions of all members and staff.

The bill's objective is to provide an independent mechanism of review that:

is fair and just

resolves applications in a timely manner, and with as little formality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferable decision

is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties

improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making, and

promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal.

To ensure it is able to achieve this objective, the bill would establish a tribunal with the following key features:

a user focused design, including simpler and more consistent processes, and an emphasis on non-adversarial approaches to resolving applications

a suite of powers and procedures—largely harmonised across the tribunal—to respond flexibly to changing case loads

mechanisms to identify, escalate and report on systemic issues in administrative decision-making, including through a new guidance and appeals panel

a simple membership structure with clear qualification requirements and role descriptions for each level of membership

clear and delineated roles and responsibilities for those who hold leadership positions in the tribunal

a transparent and merit based appointment process for members, and

powers for the president to manage the performance, conduct and professional development of members.

Structure and membership

The tribunal will be made up of the president, deputy presidents (both judicial and non-judicial), senior members and general members. This streamlined membership structure responds to feedback that the AAT's seven membership levels are confusing and arbitrary.

The tribunal's president will have clear functions, including hearing particularly significant and complex matters as a member, managing the business of the tribunal, managing the performance and conduct of members and consulting with civil society.

A single chief executive officer and principal registrar (principal registrar), will assist the president to manage the administrative affairs of the tribunal, and will be responsible for managing corporate and registry services.

The tribunal will be made up of eight jurisdictional areas:

general

intelligence and security

migration

National Disability Insurance Scheme

protection

social security

taxation and business, and

veterans and workers compensation.

Within these jurisdictional areas, the president can establish 'lists', led by senior members or deputy presidents, to ensure the tribunal can build specialist knowledge to deal effectively with distinct case loads.

This structure builds in flexibility to ensure an enduring, responsive foundation for the tribunal's work into the future.

Each jurisdictional area will be led by a non-judicial deputy president who will be responsible for identifying and managing trends in and changes in the case load of their jurisdictional area, and managing the performance, conduct and professional development of members assigned to that area.

The president will have the power to assign members within the tribunal to work in different jurisdictional areas. Vesting this power in the president will allow members to be deployed more flexibly.

A Tribunal Advisory Committee will provide strong collective leadership to the tribunal. Comprised of the president, principal registrar and the jurisdictional area leaders, the committee will ensure these leaders are individually and jointly responsible for promoting the tribunal's objective.

Transparent and merit based selection process

A transparent and merit based selection process for members is provided for in the bill.

The suitability of prospective members (other than judicial deputy presidents) will be assessed through a thorough, competitive, merit based and publicly advertised process. The assessment will consider how well candidates fulfil the skills, expertise, experience and knowledge required to be a member of the tribunal.

This assessment must also consider the need for a diversity of skills, expertise, and lived experience, noting that the tribunal should reflect the community it serves.

Performance, conduct and professional development of members

The bill would give the president powers to manage member performance, conduct and professional development.

The power to adequately address allegations of member underperformance, bullying and harassment was noticeably absent from the AAT Act. The bill provides powers and processes that will help ensure the tribunal is a safe and respectful workplace, and the public can be confident in the quality of the tribunal's decision-making.

User focused accessible design

The bill strengthens the tribunal's objective of providing independent merits review that is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties, including people with disability and people who do not speak English as a first language (or at all).

Enhanced powers and procedures

The bill provides the tribunal with a range of powers and procedures that can be applied flexibly across all jurisdictions within the tribunal. This will allow the tribunal to tailor its processes to best suit each matter.

The bill also introduces procedures around party participation to make proceedings more flexible and less adversarial. Specifically, the bill provides a mechanism for decision-makers to elect not to participate in the review process. Some kinds of proceedings will be better suited to a less formal process of review involving only the applicant. The majority of AAT reviews are already conducted in the absence of a decision-maker and the more inquisitorial nature of these reviews is valued by applicants.

The ability of decision-makers to elect not to participate in proceedings will be subject to limits set out in the bill, including that the tribunal may order a decision-maker to participate.

Retaining powers and procedures that work

The new tribunal will also have all of the essential powers, procedures and requirements currently applicable in the AAT.

Improved administrative decision-making

A key objective of the tribunal will be to improve the quality and transparency of decision-making across government.

The bill achieves this important objective in a number of ways, including by re-establishing the Administrative Review Council. This was a key recommendation of the robodebt royal commission.

The council will comprise members with administrative law expertise and knowledge of the needs of people significantly affected by government decisions.

The tribunal's senior leadership will also be directly responsible for identifying and monitoring systemic issues in government decision-making, and bringing them to the attention of government and the Administrative Review Council.

The president's functions also include engaging with civil society on the performance of the tribunal's functions, to ensure that users' voices and interests are heard directly by the most senior leaders in the tribunal.

The bill also strengthens requirements for the publication of tribunal decisions, in line with the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission.

Guidance and appeals panel

The bill also establishes a guidance and appeals panel within the tribunal to resolve matters raising systemic issues and review tribunal decisions that may be affected by error. This will promote consistent tribunal decision making and more rapid responses to emerging issues.

The guidance and appeals panel will be able to hear matters on appeal that raise a significant issue in administrative decision-making or where the decision of the tribunal may contain a material error.

The president may also refer a matter to the guidance and appeals panel if it raises an issue of significance to administrative decision-making.

A decision of the guidance and appeals panel on a systemic issue will provide clarity for others seeking review and will enhance the quality of future administrative decisions, both by the original decision-maker and by the tribunal, on similar issues. Tribunal members will be required to treat these decisions as guidance decisions.

Conclusion

Before I conclude, I would like to thank the many organisations and individuals who have contributed to the development of this legislation, including the members of the expert advisory group, staff, members and users of the AAT, and the many legal assistance providers, advocates and other experts who have made submissions to, or met with, the Attorney-General's Department.

I also want to thank all of the officers at the Attorney-General's Department who have worked on these bills for their excellent work.

This legislation represents an opportunity to significantly improve Australia's administrative review system—a key pillar of our democracy.

The new tribunal is intended to serve as a safeguard against abuses of power.

It is intended to play a vital role in protecting the rights and interests of members of the community, and ensuring that government and the Public Service act within the bounds of the law.

It is intended to lead to better government and better government decision-making.

My hope is that the bills will benefit from parliamentary scrutiny through the Senate committee process and, ultimately, gain broad support across the parliament. I welcome discussions and views on this legislation. We are committed to getting this right.

As the robodebt royal commission noted:

Effective merits review is an essential part of the legal framework that protects the rights and interests of individuals; it also promotes government accountability and plays a broader important role in improving the quality and consistency of government decisions.

With this legislation, the government is seeking to restore trust and confidence in Australia's system of merits review, and I look forward to the support of this parliament.

Debate adjourned.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (10:11): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Amendments No.1) Bill 2023 supports the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal), which will be created by the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 (the ART Bill).

It makes consequential and transitional amendments to 138 Commonwealth acts, covering approximately 93 per cent of the tribunal's caseload. Those amendments are needed to effectively implement this significant reform.

Further technical amendments will be required to approximately 120 acts which refer to the AAT, and these will be introduced in parliament as soon as possible. Decisions under these other acts collectively account for approximately seven per cent of the AAT's jurisdiction by caseload.

Abolishing the AAT

The consequential and transitional bill repeals the AAT Act and other legislative provisions that provide for the operation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Review Tribunal, established by the ART Bill, will replace it.

Consequential amendments

The bill contains consequential amendments to acts in 14 Commonwealth portfolios. These include Social Services, Treasury, Veterans' Affairs and Home Affairs, as well as matters affecting the National Intelligence Community.

The changes in this consequential and transitional bill focus on addressing the highest-volume caseloads within the tribunal and the most complex consequential amendments. They also make simple but essential reference changes.

Migration Act

The Migration Act will be amended to harmonise and improve the review process for migration and protection visa applicants. To provide for more effective and efficient reviews, the exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule will be adjusted so that it applies in limited, critical, areas.

The Immigration Assessment Authority, which provides a 'fast track' style of review for certain protection visa applicants, will be abolished. These applicants will have their matters reviewed in the same way as any other protection visa applicant.

The reform significantly standardises the availability of tribunal powers and procedures for migration and protection matters, supporting consistency and collaboration across the tribunal. This includes the ability to hold directions hearings, case conferences and to use broader dismissal powers, directions powers and summons powers. Administrative and procedural tasks will be able to be delegated to registrars and staff.

It is no secret that the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT is beset by delays. The Nixon report found that these delays were 'motivating bad actors to take advantage by lodging increasing numbers of non-genuine applications for protection'. This has come at a cost to people in genuine need of protection and to the broader Australian community.

Together with the changes introduced by the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and the government's recent appointment of over 90 additional members, the changes to the Migration Act in this consequential and transitional bill will give the tribunal the tools it needs to swiftly resolve unmeritorious applications that cause delays in the migration system without sacrificing fairness for genuine applicants.

Social Services and NDIS

The consequential and transitional bill provides for a more flexible, robust and fit-for-purpose style of review for social security and child support decisions. Among other things, the amendments reflect the fact that the new guidance and appeals panel will be able to hear social security and child support matters on appeal that raise a significant issue in administrative decision-making or where the decision of the tribunal may contain a material error. In light of the new structure, social security and child support matters will be triaged from the outset, and resolved according to the complexity of the matter and whether the participation of the decision-maker will assist its effective and efficient resolution.

The consequential and transitional bill also updates references in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act, to ensure reviews of these decisions can continue in the new tribunal. The new tribunal is focused on flexible, informal and accessible reviews, and has the power to appoint practitioners—where needed—to assist people with disability. The tribunal is expressly required to promote accessibility in proceedings, ensuring that parties can effectively participate, and be responsive to the diverse needs of parties to the proceedings.

Treasury portfolio

A range of modifications which currently apply for taxation and charity matters in the AAT will be retained to, among other things, protect tax revenue collection, and to uphold longstanding core tax principles and practices. For example:

mandating private hearings to protect taxpayer confidentiality,

retaining rules which require the initial lodgement with the tribunal of all documents that are necessary to the review (rather than all documents relevant to the review), and

maintaining rules which provide that the applicant has the burden of proof for tax and charity matters, to ensure the workability of such proceedings and consistency with Australia's tax system being based on self-assessment.

Veterans' reviews

The arrangements for veterans' matters that currently apply in relation to the AAT are retained in the context of the new tribunal, including the ability to seek review in the tribunal following consideration by the Veterans' Review Board. Given the complex nature of the issues relating to the determination of liability and compensation, modifications such as application time limits will continue to apply, to ensure veterans and their dependants are not disadvantaged. Provisions setting out protections for matters involving national security information are contained across various acts and will be harmonised to ensure clarity.

Transitional amendments

The consequential and transitional bill also facilitates the smooth transition from the AAT to the new tribunal.

The bill makes provision for institutional and corporate arrangements, such as the transfer of staff, assets, liabilities and records from the AAT to the new tribunal. The bill provides that all ongoing and non-ongoing staff will transfer to the new tribunal.

It provides clarity by ensuring that applications that have already been made to the AAT, or proceedings already in progress, will automatically transfer to the new tribunal when it commences operations. Parties with matters in the tribunal at the time of transition will be notified, and will not need to reapply to have their matter continue.

AAT members who are judges will have their appointments transferred to the ART. Moreover, AAT members (including the President) who have been appointed since 1 January 2023 through a transparent and merit based selection process will also transition to the tribunal for the remainder of their terms.

All other current members have been given the opportunity to apply for roles in the new tribunal through the merit based appointment process that has already commenced.

Current full-time AAT members who are appointed to the new tribunal and whose appointments would have continued beyond the commencement date will have their remuneration preserved at their current AAT rate for up to four months, unless their remuneration would be higher in the ART.

Current full-time members who are not appointed to the new tribunal and whose appointments would have continued beyond the commencement date of the new tribunal will be paid an amount equivalent to up to four months of their current salary.

This arrangement ensures that compensation payments are fair and reasonable but not excessive.

Conclusion

The consequential and transitional provisions bill makes essential consequential amendments to legislation across the Commonwealth, and outlines robust transitional arrangements needed to support the smooth establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal.

It also harmonises, streamlines and enhances the operation of provisions across a range of jurisdictional areas, simplifying the process for applicants and promoting a more efficient, accessible and cohesive tribunal.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway—Minister for Communications) (10:21): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Access to telecommunications underpins much of today's economic, social, cultural and political activity. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will deliver improved safeguards for Australian consumers when they access broadband and voice services.

The Bill contains five schedules. Schedule 1, the bulk of the bill, sets out measures to refine and improve the statutory infrastructure provider, or SIP, regime in part 19 of the Telecommunications Act1997.

Currently, part 19 provides the legislative basis for NBN Co, and other telecommunications carriers, to provide access to high-speed broadband networks across Australia.

Most changes are minor and will enhance the operation of the regime, but there are a number of more significant measures.

First, the bill will bring private networks in new developments, for example those operating in retirement villages, into the SIP regime for the first time. Bringing these private networks under the regime will mean that consumers living in these developments will have greater certainty they can access broadband and voice at appropriate standards.

Second, the bill will provide a mechanism for SIPs to be required to pay compensation to customers where they do not meet a standard or a rule. This will give providers an incentive to lift performance in the event that new standards or rules are implemented.

Third, the bill will clarify that the obligations of SIPs start in an area once buildings have been constructed and someone has moved in. Currently, the obligations start once a network has been installed. This has meant that when there is a delay in deploying a network, occupants can face delays in being able to access telecommunications.

Fourth, the bill will clarify the powers of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to resolve complaints about SIP connections. This will provide an additional safeguard for consumers.

Fifth, the bill provides stricter rules when SIPs exit their service areas. Appropriate notice will then be given to NBN Co, as the default SIP, to arrange for continuity of service in an area.

Sixth, the bill repeals an exemption from the SIP supply obligation, due to uncertainty in the industry about how the obligation operates. The bill proposes to replace the exemption with a power for the minister to adjust the SIP supply obligation in the event a SIP is temporarily unable to fulfil the obligation.

This mechanism would be delivered by legislative instrument, and the minister would be able to specify conditions that must be met, such as reporting obligations, to provide transparency to consumers and the regulator.

Schedule 2 to the bill would provide powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to issue remedial notices to developers who do not install functional fibre-ready facilities, such as pit and pipe, in developments.

This will further encourage developers to install fit-for-purpose pit and pipe and remediate it if it is deficient.

Schedule 3 to the bill clarifies the powers of the ACMA to identify carriers and carriage service providers in public reports on their performance. This will improve transparency and accountability. Carriers and carriage service providers will be encouraged to improve their performance, and consumers will have better information when they choose a service provider.

Schedule 4 provides powers for universal service providers to be determined in relation to specific areas of Australia. This provides future flexibility, for example, if Norfolk Island is fully integrated into the Australian telecommunications regulatory framework.

Schedule 5 makes some technical amendments to legislation, including to clarify the powers of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to issue infringement notices. The bill will also clarify the maximum penalties that should apply for breaches of carrier separation rules and also the anti-avoidance measures relating to the Regional Broadband Scheme.

Taken together, the measures in the bill will improve access to broadband and voice services for people in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (10:28): I understand it is the wish of the House that the amendments be considered together.

Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Minister for Health and Aged Care and Deputy Leader of the House) (10:28): Tobacco has caused immeasurable harm and costs countless lives in this country. We can't stand by and allow another generation of people to be lured into addiction and suffer the enormous health, economic and social consequences. Together with the strong measures that we're taking against vaping, these reforms, which will pass the parliament today I hope, will help us keep pace with the cynical marketing strategies of big tobacco. Simply put, the laws passed today will save Australian lives.

Australia now has the legislation in place to underpin our renewed fight against tobacco and to protect the next generation from the devastating impacts of smoking. The passage of this bill returns Australia to its place as a world leader in tobacco control. I want to thank a range of the senators for amendments to the bill that is before the House now. I want to thank Senator Pocock, Senator Steele-John and the Greens party for their engagement, as well as other senators for their support. I also want to thank Senator Ruston for her constructive amendments to the tobacco legislation and her willingness to continue Australia's world-leading tobacco reforms. We look forward to working with the opposition, and I look forward to working with the shadow minister, Senator Ruston, and the crossbench as we introduce vaping legislation in the new year.

The government has also worked closely with tobacco control and public health experts to ensure that we have the best possible protections in place. At the risk of singling some people out in a very vast group of terrific public health experts, I do want to thank the Cancer Council—especially the leadership shown by Tanya Buchanan—Professor Emily Banks, the Australian Council on Smoking and Health and the Public Health Association of Australia for their tireless advocacy. I assure the parliament that the government will move quickly to finalise new regulations to support the reforms in the bill. I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Georganas ) (10:31): I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.

Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Minister for Health and Aged Care and Deputy Leader of the House) (10:31): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for the Environment and Water) (10:41): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

When Labor came to government, we promised to protect more of what's precious, restore more of what's damaged and manage nature better for our children and our grandchildren. Today the House has the chance to pass two more crucial environmental reforms. Firstly, this legislation establishes a new nature repair market in Australia, the first of its kind in the world. It is legislation that will encourage good environmental work, making it easier for businesses, philanthropists and other groups to invest in projects that protect and restore nature. Crucially, it will guard against the threat of greenwashing. This is not to replace government effort but to reinforce it. This means landholders, farmers and First Nations groups will be paid to improve nature on their properties. It will guarantee that the money invested does what it intends to do: restore habitats, improve our soil, eradicate feral species, protect our beaches and make our land more resilient to droughts and floods. The market will be strictly monitored by the Clean Energy Regulator to ensure full transparency and integrity in the system. This is part of Labor's mission to build a nature-positive Australia. We need effective national laws, we need active government investment and, wherever possible, we need the support of private money and philanthropists.

Secondly, the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, with its amendments, will update the water trigger in our national environmental laws so that new unconventional gas projects will be assessed for their impact on water resources. Labor promised this change before the election and today we are delivering it. It's a commonsense reform providing businesses with certainty and the community with confidence that water resources are properly regulated and protected.

I want to take a moment to thank the member for Lingiari. The member for Lingiari has fought passionately for this change for her community since not just her election to this place but long before. I'd also like to acknowledge the member for Mackellar. The member for Mackellar introduced a private member's bill on this subject earlier this year. Three expert reports over five years have recommended making this change. The water trigger already applies to coal seam gas, but now it will include types of unconventional gas such as shale gas and tight gas. Most new projects will be unaffected by the change as coal seam gas production is already covered by the existing water trigger and the changes do not apply to conventional gas production. Existing gas projects that are in production and have already been approved are also unaffected by this update. Projects regulated by NOPSEMA, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, are also unaffected by this update. This will provide certainty for business and ensure continuity of gas supply.

Last week we passed our bill to rescue the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and today we are, I hope, passing two more important pieces of environmental protection. I encourage all members of this House to support the bill and deliver more environmental protection in nine days than the previous government did in nine years.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to. For the benefit of the members of the House, I'm going to call the Leader of the Nationals. I understand he has amendments to these amendments. Under the standing orders, this is the time to move amendments to the Senate amendments. Moving forward, so all members understand the process—

The SPEAKER: The member for Wannon will cease interjecting.

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals definitely has the call.

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Leader of the Nationals) (10:46): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2), circulated in my name, to Senate amendment (3) together:

(1) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new definition of unconventional gas development in section 528 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999), omit the definition, substitute:

unconventional gas development means any activity involving unconventional gas production or carbon sequestration that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources (including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity):

(a) in its own right; or

(b) when considered with other developments, whether past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments.

(2) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new definition of unconventional gas production in section 528 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999), omit the definition, substitute:

unconventional gas production or carbon sequestration means extraction, recovery, injection, or intentional release, (whether by drilling, hydraulic fracturing or other means) of methane or carbon dioxide from or into:

(a) coal seams or beds; or

(b) layers of shale rock; or

(c) tight gas reservoirs; or

(d) aquifers.

The coalition requests that it make a simple amendment to the amendments that it moved as a result of the bill passing through the Senate yesterday—the one around carbon sequestration. There was an amendment to the EPBC Act—

The SPEAKER: The Leader of The Nationals will pause. The minister for infrastructure and the member for Wannon will not be interjecting. No-one will interject during this process—trust me. The Leader of The Nationals has the call and will be heard in silence.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Mr Speaker, thank you. The Senate made amendments to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 that addressed the EPBC and gas extraction. The Nationals and the Liberals believe that this is an opportune time to also pursue an opportunity to look at carbon capture, storage and sequestration, particularly on shore. At the moment, there is a development in my own electorate where a carbon capture and storage project will collect carbon from a coal-fired power station and inject it into the Precipice. That goes through the Great Artesian Basin, the biggest potable water source for this country. It services stock and domestic use right across the Great Artesian Basin.

We obviously support carbon capture and storage, but it has to be in the appropriate place. The technology is emerging, and we support that technology, but it has to be done at an appropriate place where we have confidence in the approvals process. At the moment, the Queensland government will be the ones that will make that determination, and what we feel is that this is a national environmental asset that should also trigger the water trigger under the EPBC Act to ensure that proper approval processes are taking place and there is oversight by all levels of government, to give confidence to those primary producers and to our communities who rely on the Great Artesian Basin for their water supply. This is a commonsense solution to what is an emerging problem in understanding the science and the technology, which we do believe we should invest in. We don't walk away from the fact that carbon capture and storage will play a very important part in reducing our emissions, and we should continue to make those investments, as the Biden administration has, with over $1.2 billion worth of investment in reducing US emissions. But with that comes a responsibility for us as legislators to protect our environment, our way of life and Australian agriculture.

Appreciating the size of the Great Artesian Basin, the sheer magnitude of the area which it covers and the reliance on it by agriculture and our communities means that it is beholden on us, not just for now but for the future, to protect these communities and to protect the environment for future generations. As the technology and science evolve, the opportunity for these companies to make these investments will continue to provide itself there. But, until that's proven on technology that is new to the world, particularly in this form in this model that is being proposed in south-west Queensland, it poses too many risks. As legislators, we should propose the precautionary principle to make sure that we make a sensible decision here in this parliament to protect our environment, protect these communities and make sure that we work with the science and the technology at a methodical pace that gives everyone confidence. This is the opportunity for this parliament today to give that confidence and greater investment confidence for carbon capture storage into the future, and to do that in harmony with Australian agriculture, our environment and particularly our communities.

We believe that this is a sensible amendment that posed itself as an opportunity when there was an amendment in the Senate to the EPBC Act. We believe that acting responsibly in understanding the impact on the Great Artesian Basin and making sure that this legislation would give that protection of another lens of oversight would give confidence to our regional communities not just in my electorate but across the Great Artesian Basin that could be impacted by this. We think this is a sensible amendment that gives everyone confidence to move forward, that gives approval-process certainty and that gives the community certainty. I ask the House to accept this amendment as a commonsense approach to protecting our environment and nature.

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for the Environment and Water) (10:51): I want to thank the Leader of the Nationals for moving this amendment to the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. I really appreciate his concerns about the Great Artesian Basin. He is absolutely right in saying that this is a vital water resource for Australia and that it must be protected. I thank him for the intent of the amendment that he has moved.

Given that the government have only just received notice of the amendment, we're not in a position to support it today, but I would say that we are very keen to work with the Leader of the Nationals on the intent of his amendment. Certainly, as we advance our reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act next year, I would be very pleased to work with him on making sure that we can give these assurances for the Great Artesian Basin, and more generally for the impact that carbon capture and storage would have on water resources.

The intent behind expanding the water trigger, as we have done, is to ensure that new unconventional gas projects will be assessed on their impact on water resources. That has been a longstanding commitment of our government, and it's a very commonsense reform. It makes sure that coal seam gas is covered by the water trigger. Other types of unconventional gas were not really contemplated when the original water trigger was written. We're expanding the water trigger to cover those other types of unconventional gas. This has been recommended in a number of inquiries: the Northern Territory government's Pepper scientific inquiry, the 2018 Senate inquiry into water use by the extractive industry and the Senate inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin. All of these recommend that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act water trigger be expanded to unconventional gas.

As I say to the member for Maranoa, while we're not in a position to support this amendment today, I would be very happy to work with him next year as we further develop our EPBC reforms. That will give us the opportunity to consider the science and to work more broadly with industries, farmers and other affected people—the water users of the Great Artesian Basin—and make sure that we get any details of further amendments correct.

Mr BOYCE (Flynn) (10:54): I rise to make a contribution on the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 and our further amendments that have been circulated. What we're proposing to do here is include 'carbon sequestration' in the unconventional gas development definition, and to add 'carbon dioxide into water aquifers' to give some protection around Australia's greatest underground water assets. These include the Great Artesian Basin.

I've just heard the minister very piously say that she is protecting properly the water assets of Australia. Now, the minister knows very well that the current EPBC Act offers no protection whatsoever to the waters of the Great Artesian Basin in respect of carbon sequestration. That is because it is not deemed to be a coalmine or a gas operation. The minister knows this very well.

As David Littleproud, the member for Maranoa, has pointed out, in Central Queensland at the moment there is a proposal to possibly pump hundreds of millions of tonnes of industrial waste into the Great Artesian Basin's waters. In their EIS statements, the proponent who is doing this has said that they will compromise the receiving ground water. They have also said that they cannot meet the current environmental protocols surrounding it, of the Queensland government, so they need those environmental authorities changed to be able to proceed.

The minister stood up there and said that she is protecting the underground waters. She is not, and the EPBC Act, as it currently reads, does not do this.

What we are asking here is to include carbon sequestration—the injection of carbon dioxide and these other things into the waters of the Great Artesian Basin, in particular—so as to give those waters some protection in respect of future developments. I urge you all to support these amendments—otherwise, you are just hypocrites.

Ms WATSON-BROWN (Ryan) (10:56): It's been a big week at the end of a big parliamentary year, with some lows and some highs. This week, there was a high. The Greens secured significant environmental reforms, to protect our environment from greenwashed habitat-destruction and dangerous fracking. After months of pressure, the government has finally agreed to scrap their controversial offsets from the Nature Repair Bill and to establish new environmental protections from climate-wrecking, environment-wrecking and community-wrecking gas-fracking projects. This agreement, secured by the Greens, is a major blow to climate-bomb projects in places like the Beetaloo Basin and the Kimberley. It's a win for the climate, a win for the environment and a win for First Nations communities.

Prior to this—and unbelievably—the minister was not required to assess fracking projects for their impact on the environment. Let that sink in. Yet, as most thinking people know, fracking can have absolutely catastrophic impacts for our critical water resources.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ryan will resume her seat. I call the Leader of the Nationals on a point of order.

Mr Littleproud: Mr Speaker, we are debating the amendments, so I don't believe the member is being relevant.

The SPEAKER: There is some latitude given. Just to remind all members: as I explained at the beginning of the debate, we are dealing with the amendments to the Senate amendments moved by the Leader of the Nationals. Whilst the member has been able to reflect on the broader Senate amendments, I'll ask for her shortly to get to the Leader of the Nationals' amendments. The member for Ryan has the call.

Ms WATSON-BROWN: For a decade—and this is all relevant to this—the Greens and environment and First Nations groups have been campaigning for an expanded water trigger, to ensure these projects are assessed.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Page will cease interjecting.

Ms WATSON-BROWN: Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendments. The passage of this legislation will close the loophole which currently gives gas-fracking corporations a licence to drill without any federal environmental water assessment.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.

Ms WATSON-BROWN: This is going to throw sand in the gears of climate-bomb projects like the Beetaloo Basin and throw a lifeline to water sources you're concerned about, like the mighty Roper River in the Northern Territory.

The original inclusion of offsets in a scheme to ostensibly 'repair' nature was a huge red flag. Allowing corporations to pay to destroy nature is obviously not nature positive. With offsets—

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Page! The member for Ryan will pause. Just so that every member is clear: this is not a debate about the bill. We are dealing with the Senate amendments and the individual amendments by the Leader of the Nationals. So, to be clear, you can talk about the Senate amendments, and/or preferably the Leader of the Nationals' question, not the general bill. The member for Ryan can continue. Just reflect on that.

Ms WATSON-BROWN: We're explaining why the original amendments should stay in their original form and not be amended.

The SPEAKER: The member for Ryan can continue.

Ms WATSON-BROWN: With offsets in the bill, this would have been a scheme to effectively greenwash to facilitate nature destruction. Now, as a result of strong opposition from the Greens and stakeholders, Labor has agreed to completely scrap biodiversity offsets from the bill. The original Nature Repair Market Bill—and I note that it's still called that on the screen—will now be renamed the Nature Repair Bill, as it will provide a voluntary system, as the minister mentioned, for private investment and philanthropy to protect and restore biodiversity on private land without offsets. Our water, our environment, our climate, are all one precious, interlinked ecosystem. Scrapping those dodgy offsets that would facilitate the actual destruction of nature and ensuring that damaging projects undergo proper environmental assessment are both critical to meaningfully restoring biodiversity and protecting our climate and our communities. Thankfully Labor has finally heeded Greens calls, and this recrafted bill will effectuate the delivery of these significant environmental reforms. Make no mistake: the environment minister has the power to stop gas mines and fracking, and we will be watching closely and doing everything that we can to ensure that Labor actually uses these powers to stop the climate-destroying, catastrophic Beetaloo and Burrup Hub projects. Our future depends on it.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (11:01): I rise to speak on the original amendments before the House, being the amendments from the Senate, which essentially expand the water trigger to this legislation, and the further amendments by the member for Maranoa, which essentially seek to, at this last minute, introduce carbon capture and sequestration and the consideration of its impact on water. Whilst in principle I think that is absolutely necessary, I am concerned at this very last-minute attempt to put this in without any explanation or discussion. It seems to be a very last-minute discovery by the member for Maranoa of the procedure in this place, or the ability to move amendments to improve legislation.

I commend the government for supporting the amendments in the message from the Senate when it comes to expanding the water trigger and updating its definition. I note it was a commitment prior to the election. It is really important for this to happen. It was only in October that the member for Mackellar, who unfortunately can't be here today due to illness, introduced a private member's bill to that effect. I had the pleasure of seconding that private member's bill to expand the water trigger to include all forms of gas extraction, to ensure consideration by the minister of the impact of projects on water.

We know that, for traditional owners, water is an incredibly important part of culture. We also know, through our warming planet and climate, that our water resources are going to come under more and more pressure. We know there are expected reductions in water tables and amounts of rainfall per year. We know that, for communities, water is an incredibly important resource. We really need to distinguish between the use of water by projects—in particular, when it comes to all forms of gas fracking—and maintaining water as an essential element for sustaining human life and for traditional owners, in relation to their cultural association and recognition of it.

I think it's incredibly important, and I thank the crossbench in both houses—in particular, the Greens—for having pushed the government to accelerate this amendment. I acknowledge it was a commitment, but the delay had been concerning, because it's incredibly important that the impact on the water table of projects like the Beetaloo basin is part of that environmental approval. We know the Northern Territory government had green-lit gas production in the Beetaloo basin—the region between Katherine and Tennant Creek that has big reserves of shale gas. It's incredibly important for those communities and elders who travelled down to Canberra—and I hope many in this place actually took the time to listen to them—to talk about the importance of the impact on their water and their communities. It's incredibly important, from the Pepper inquiry into fracking in the Northern Territory, to note the deep concern and the strong opposition to development of any onshore shale gas industry on their country.

I welcome the amendments. I would like to see further information from the Nationals in relation to their last-minute amendment because I think that would assist the procedure in this place. I certainly welcome any legislation that increases scrutiny of the use of nature and resources and water in relation to mining, gas extraction and, in particular, carbon capture and storage.

Dr RYAN (Kooyong) (11:05): The effectiveness of biodiversity markets rests on whether or not they reward stewardship that really benefits biodiversity or whether they rely on offsets that harm biodiversity elsewhere. When we first saw the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, we were concerned about its potential for commodifying nature and about the scheme's integrity around its interaction with our national environmental laws, particularly given its offsets provisions. So it was with great joy that I and others on the crossbench saw, two nights ago, the use of biodiversity certificates for offsetting specifically excluded by the Senate. It is a vast improvement to this legislation that it is now clear that biodiversity certificates cannot be used to meet offsetting requirements under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation. This markedly improves the integrity of the system, and I congratulate the government on this achievement.

The aspect of this bill that sparks the greatest joy, however, is that the government has now, in response to sustained pressure from the crossbench in both chambers, revised the water trigger in the EPBC Act. What this means is that the Minister for the Environment and Water must now consider the impact of all forms of conventional and unconventional gas development on local water resources. Unconventional gas projects are not currently covered by the water trigger but rather are assessed and approved by relevant state and territory legislation. Sadly, we have seen that the states and territories cannot be trusted with responsibility for our environment. In recent months, we've seen the Northern Territory government falsely claim implementation of all recommendations of the Pepper inquiry. It has given the green light to fracking in the Beetaloo basin, a process which could well compromise the safety of 90 per cent of the water relied upon by Territorians. It could well cause irreversible damage to the natural environment in an area the size of Victoria.

Concerns were raised recently by climate scientists from the Territory who found methane bubbling in hot springs in the Territory, suggesting that exploratory fracking was already impacting the integrity of its aquifers, springs and rivers, including the iconic and beautiful Mataranka hot springs and the Roper River. Last week I met with representatives of First Nations communities potentially affected by this process in the Territory, and I heard their distress about the potential contamination of their country. Expansion of the water trigger was a pre-election commitment of this government, and I congratulate the environment minister and the members for Lingiari and Mackellar for delivering on that commitment. It is time for Australia to lead the way out of the climate crisis, so I and many of the members on the crossbench will be glad to see this bill passed today with the improvements generated with our input.

I commend the bill to the House.

Ms SCRYMGOUR (Lingiari) (11:09): It gives me great pleasure to stand here and speak on the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendment) Bill 2023, and I applaud the Minister for the Environment and Water. This has been a major win for the Australian Labor Party. Whilst we hear the Greens and others take credit for the water trigger, a water trigger for non-conventional gas can be delivered only by a Labor government. I thank the minister for the environment and the cabinet. I was just thinking back to my maiden speech, where I talked about how mining is a big contributor in the Northern Territory. We had the large mines in the seventies. Anyone who knows the landscape of the Northern Territory knows it's not about saying that we don't need mining. But it is about saying we need strong environmental laws. That is what is important here. I know that firsthand from talking to Aboriginal people and to other communities in the Northern Territory, because it's not just Aboriginal people; there are pastoralists, there are people living on small outstations, and everyone as a collective needed to be spoken to in relation to the non-conventional gas or fracking that was being proposed in the Northern Territory.

There were a number of concerns coming from a lot of the Aboriginal groups, but there was one thing that was uniting all of the Aboriginal groups, and that was water. The minister has listened. The government has certainly listened. I, too, have spoken to many of the groups in my electorate, and they said very clearly that they wanted the delivery of a water trigger.

This has been a Labor government that has delivered on this—not the Greens, not the crossbench. We've needed that support, and I thank the Greens for their support. I also thank the member for Mackellar, because I know that there were conversations, and I did have some conversations with the member for Mackellar when various groups came down to talk to members of the crossbench and our government about these issues, particularly in relation to water. It would pay for some of those members not just to stand in this place but also to come out and have a look at what needs to be done in these communities.

One thing we can't do is lock up our communities. If anyone has read the Pepper review in the Northern Territory, they'll know it isn't about locking up the Territory. There were two critical recommendations that were in the purview of the Commonwealth government. The former government ignored those two recommendations. The former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory put a moratorium on that report until such time as we could work through and understand fully what the Pepper review entailed. It is pleasing to be part of a government who has been strong enough, courageous enough, to take the water trigger and put it in the Nature Repair Bill. I want to thank the minister's staff, who have worked very closely with me and with my office to have a look at how we can proceed with this. This is important for the Northern Territory. This is important for water resources into the future. But it's not about locking the Northern Territory up away from projects. There's a lot of mining activity, like critical minerals, that needs to happen and that we still need to proceed with, but this will go a long way.

I was sitting here before I stood up thinking in particular about a lot of my constituents in Elliott—many of them on renal dialysis—who have been waiting for this to happen. I'm hoping that, when I go back up there, I'll do a trip to Tennant Creek, Elliott, Katherine, Mataranka, Jilkminggan and all of those communities, not just those feeding into the Roper River but all of the other parts. The artesian basin, which people might talk about in Queensland, does come through Central Australia. (Time expired)

Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (11:14): I rise to speak in support of the Nature Repair Bill 2023 and the amendments that have been added by the Senate. I want to reflect that this parliament has a supermajority for action on climate change and the environment across this House and across the Senate. I think that this bill is a reflection of that supermajority. It is a reflection of the government working constructively with the crossbench in this House and in the Senate to deliver something that the Australian people are asking for, which is to make sensible protections for our environment so that we can safeguard those for future generations.

I would like to firstly say thank you to the minister and to my colleagues here and in the other place for the constructive negotiations on this. I'd like to thank the member for Lingiari and also the member for Mackellar for their absolutely wonderful advocacy on this because they have done a brilliant job.

I want to really highlight that this legislation, as other members have noted, will expand the water trigger under the EPBC Act. This is a matter that I and many others on the crossbench have been pushing for. Those amendments are absolutely critical for safeguarding Australia's environment, and they ensure that unconventional gas projects such as those proposed for the Beetaloo basin will be properly assessed for environmental impacts. The lack of a water trigger was a major flaw, and I'm so pleased to see that being rectified. This is what can be achieved when the parliament works constructively together on the issues that matter most to Australians. I thank the House.

Ms TINK (North Sydney) (11:16): I rise today to acknowledge that there are a lot of people who are very deeply committed to this legislation and very deeply committed to moving us forward when it comes to environmental practices. I never thought I would hear these words coming out of my mouth, but it seems to me that the amendment that the Nationals have moved makes sense. It makes this legislation stronger. As somebody who grew up in north-west New South Wales, I'm very aware of the importance of the artesian water basin.

I think that, with respect to my colleagues from the other side of the House, this legislation has gotten better and better because the minister was willing to listen to everyone in this process. The first draft of the legislation that was brought in had many of us concerned. I think it has been the combined efforts of everyone and the minister's willingness to listen and engage that has meant we have gotten closer to a very excellent piece of legislation. Is it the best it can be? No. I think the minister still knows that and, indeed, she's acknowledging that today by standing and extending an offer to the Nationals to work with them when it comes to improving this legislation.

I want to stand today to say that that should be the process with this legislation and with every other piece of climate and environmental legislation that we intend to move through this place in the next 12 months to two years or three years, because we will never get it right the first time. If we adopt the attitude that we are getting it right the first time, we will be failing our communities. I commend the Nationals for identifying this as an opportunity to improve this legislation. I support its movement in the House and encourage the minister and her team to continue to explore adopting it, because, ultimately, we must be united. We must move beyond bipartisan politics and party politicking if we are going to create sustainable change in our environmental laws.

Mr JOYCE (New England) (11:18): As someone who has lived in Charleville, St George and Moree, it is incredibly important for me that people clearly understand that you have concerns about the water that comes out, but you've also got concerns about what goes in. An unknown quantity is what this can do to the world's largest potable water resource. Without the Great Artesian Basin, you basically have economic devastation everywhere that relies on that water source. You have the capacity to create a toxic plume. You have the capacity to change carbon dioxide; you have a form of mild or carbolic acid that can be created.

We've got to be incredibly cautious about this. It's new technology that's being brought to the fore. It's basically untested and untried. If we don't have a precautionary process now, we won't be able to unwind what happens next. It'll be too late. I remember, and I'm sure the member for Maranoa is aware, when Linc Energy had the great idea to start burning coal underground for the creation of commercial gases. It turned into a complete disaster. It turned into a thing that infected and affected bores all around the area and basically made the place, as far as the groundwater went, a wasteland. We don't want to double up on that.

Now, I acknowledge that there are a few times when we have points of agreement. I acknowledge that, across the chamber, and with the teals and the Greens, there are areas where, generally, you can pick it every day—that they'll be on different sides of the fence. But I ask you, on this one, to really consider this.

I hear that people say that it's a last-minute amendment. The member for Flynn has been working on this for months; I'd say, for—I don't know—even a year. He's been—

An honourable member interjecting—

Mr JOYCE: No, you've actually got to follow the media. He's been in the media. He's been everywhere on this. He mightn't have been in the media circles that you listen to, but he's certainly been in the media circles of western Queensland and other areas. We need to pay respect to that. It's hard to break into Sydney media from Gladstone. But this is an incredibly poignant thing.

I rarely speak to amendments. But I'm speaking to this one today in the hope that, at this stage, you consider exactly what you're doing.

It is going to look—I'm being very polite—confusing. And I warrant that you have great concerns about the water issues in one area. But this is exactly the same thing; it's a water issue. The only difference is the direction the water is going. We're not talking about taking water out; we're talking about putting water in. But if we foul the resource, it won't really matter what you do with the water—whether you take it out or not—because it'll be unusable.

Also, there's a sort of commercial nuance behind this. If you actually look at what Glencore can make out of this, they can make, basically, billions of dollars—billions of dollars, out of something that could be to the detriment of, and could cause the destruction of, a large section of the Murray-Darling Basin. They'll basically get paid a credit for what they're going to be putting into the Great Artesian Basin. I think it was a really neat trick by some big corporate minds and big corporate accountants to come up with this, but they've come up with this at the behest of those getting a return. This will leave bereft the people of western Queensland and western New South Wales, and others, right down into sections of South Australia and up into the Northern Territory.

So just really think about this. You're about to go on the record, and you don't want to be on the wrong side of history.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:22): Give me a break! The member for New England, in the previous government, presided over some of the most destructive water policies that this country has seen for decades! Under the previous government, we have seen the Murray-Darling being starved of water. We saw the previous government put its hands in taxpayers' pockets to fund fracking—to fund the expansion of the gas industry, with all the threat that that poses to farmers and the water table.

They had a whole decade to bring in this reform that they've decided, at the last minute, is suddenly so critical. It's so critical they couldn't show it to anyone, so we could have a chance to have a look at it, to work out whether it does the thing that they're saying. It's so critical that they couldn't even be bothered circulating a paper copy of it in the chamber—the usual practice—so that people could look at it. It's so critical to them that they couldn't even be bothered coming to anyone else before this vote and saying, 'Would you mind supporting this one because it's a good idea.' It's so critical that, when the debate was happening in the Senate, they didn't even bother moving it there, where it might have had a chance of getting passed.

So give me a break! When the member for New England stands up here and, in honeyed tones, tries to convince the parliament and the nation that he somehow cares about the water table, after a decade of being the most destructive water minister, at times, that this country has ever seen, well—pardon me—I don't accept that for one minute. There might be some merit in an amendment that the Leader of the Nationals wants to approve, but when the member for New England gets up and says, in hand-wringing, unctuous tones, 'This is the best thing that ever happened,' when he never bothered to bring it to parliament over the last decade, no-one believes it for a moment.

The previous government, the coalition, had a decade to act to protect farmers. What did they do? They backed the frackers every time—every time. Every time we tried to say: 'Give farmers the right to lock the gate. Give farmers the right to protect the water table against the destructive influence of the gas industry,' the National Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of gas and coal corporations in this country, picked coal over crops. They always pick gas over farmers, every time. Now, as they see themselves dwindling further into irrelevance, they come in here with a last-minute stunt and expect people to take them seriously. Give me an absolute break! Even the member for New England can't hide a smile, because he knows it's a con that he's trying on here. He had years to do something about it and presided over the destruction of this country's water table.

We will look carefully and seriously at any amendment that actually protects water in this country, because that's what we have tried to do. We have fought the Nationals when they have backed the gas industry against farmers every single time. If they have a good suggestion, of course we're prepared to look at it. But give people time to have a look at it, come here and at least keep a straight face while you're trying to do it. You're not trying to hide the smirks that you have at the moment, after a decade of delivering for the gas industry and driving farmers into the ground. Don't come in here with a last-minute stunt and pretend you care.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:26): This amendment put forward by the Leader of The Nationals, the member for Maranoa, merely aligns the approvals required for industry activities for both gas extraction and carbon sequestration to the same standards, ensuring that, where there is the potential for a significant impact on water resources, the injection and permanent storage of carbon dioxide underground will meet the same scientific standards through the approval process as part of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That's what we're talking about here.

We just heard a rant from the member for Melbourne. He asks and calls to give him a break. I tell you what: Australian farmers won't just give him a break; they'll give him the food on his table, three times a day every day. He should thank farmers. He shouldn't come into this place, as he and his coterie so often do, and malign our farmers, who are the best in the world. If they were left at the behest of the Greens, our farmers would not even be in existence. We hear so often from the Greens about the Beetaloo basin, about our farmers and about the Murray-Darling Basin. I challenge the member for Melbourne, the Greens leader, and his cohort to actually leave their capital cities, leave the confines of their ivory towers, come into regional Australia and see some real work being done, to see the farmers who, with the sweat of their brows and the work of their hands, are getting dirt under their fingernails to produce the food on limited water.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Order! Member for Melbourne.

Mr McCORMACK: The member for Melbourne should just be quiet. He just might learn something.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that's my job to tell him that; not yours.

Mr McCORMACK: He just might learn something about our farmers. He talks about the Murray-Darling Basin. I appreciate that this is about the amendments brought to the chamber by the member for Maranoa, but our farmers aren't the only ones who are going to be affected by the changes that Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and the water minister, who I quite like, have brought to this place.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr McCORMACK: I do, and she knows it—and it's mutual.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr McCORMACK: I know it's mutual. The member for Lyons can laugh all he likes, but I've got a lot of respect for the water minister. That said, when Labor and the Greens get together on a motion, on a piece of legislation, it's not just going to affect our farmers. It's going to affect the cafes, the hairdressers, the schools and everyone else in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is sensible environmental policy, brought to you by the National Party, brought to you on behalf of our farmers. The member for New England is right when he talks about that wonderful underground inland river system called the artesian basin. We have to protect it. We have to look after it.

Mr McCORMACK: We had a decade. That's more than what I hope you ever get, member for Melbourne. Let me tell you: when the leader of the Greens in the ACT wants the Greens to have cabinet spots in the federal parliament, I worry, I shake, I shiver with fear, because you could just imagine Senator Shoebridge in charge of justice. You could just imagine Senator Hanson-Young being in charge of agriculture. They're enough to make our farmers fear. They're enough to make our communities worry, to keep them awake at night.

This amendment will not keep Australians awake at night if it is approved. I appreciate the water minister saying she would look at it in the future. I hope they do more than just look at it in the future; I hope they vote with us today, because we have to look after our artesian basin. We have to make sure that the potable water is there not just for present needs but for future generations, because, once destroyed, we will never get it back. That's why these are sensible amendments. That's why the member for Maranoa has put forward these amendments to the amendments coming back from the Senate.

The member for New England is also right when he talks about what the member for Flynn has put forward. The member for Flynn has been working on this for months. He is a passionate Queenslander. He understands better than anyone the benefits of the artesian basin and the need to protect it. He comes to this place with experience in that regard. He was a former Queensland member of parliament. He understands how important mining is. He understands how important Gladstone harbour is. He understands how important farming is because he actually runs a farm, owns a farm, works a farm—more than I can say the member for Melbourne ever will.

Mr COULTON (Parkes—Chief Nationals Whip) (11:31): I too rise in support of the amendment moved by the member for Maranoa and the Leader of The Nationals. Water is our most valuable resource, and we need to have safeguards around the use of water to protect the resource for future generations. It doesn't mean we should prohibit the use of that water—it's a resource, and I firmly believe that these resources are to be used to the benefit of the whole of society—but we need to have safeguards. I think this is a sensible amendment.

But what we have seen today in this debate is the tale of two members of parliament: the member for Flynn, who is a man of the land whose family still produces beef and grain in a sustainable manner in the electorate of Flynn, and the member for Melbourne, who has turned one of the great rivers of Australia into a concrete drain. When the member for Melbourne comes in here and starts talking about restoring the Yarra to its original condition, maybe talks about the businesses in the CBD of Melbourne turning their lights off when they go home at night-time, maybe stops flying around in jets to climate change conferences all over to globe, maybe I will take some notice. I've said in this place, and I'll repeat it: my dung beetles have done more for the environment than the member for Melbourne!

We see a lot of talk in this place from people in the leafy suburbs of the capital cities. In the last debate we had here, two weeks ago about the Murray-Darling Basin, we had the members who represent those communities and who are fighting for those communities debating people who were reading from prepared speeches on ideological background. They've got no skin in the game. The member for Flynn has skin in the game. He lives on top of the Great Artesian Basin, as does my electorate, as do the farmers in my electorate who rely on this water, and they have for a long time.

I support this amendment. It's important that we protect our resources. But, unlike the Greens, I don't oppose extractive industries. The Greens are opposing the industries that keep their lights on. How does the member for Melbourne think Melbourne was built? Did the good fairies come in and build those concrete, steel and glass structures? Somewhere in Victoria there is a hole in the ground where the raw materials came from that built that city. Somewhere in regional Australia the people, as we're speaking here today, are out there producing the food for the residents of the member for Melbourne's electorate. Somewhere out in regional Australia coalminers are digging up coal to keep the lights on for the member for Melbourne. It drives me absolutely to distraction in this place when people want to bite the hand that feeds them. I support this amendment. It's common sense, and we should support it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Maranoa be agreed to, and I call the minister.

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for the Environment and Water) (11:35): I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Maranoa to Senate amendment (3) be agreed to.

The SPEAKER ( 11:45 ): The question before the House is that the Senate's amendments be agreed to.

The SPEAKER (11:52): I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (11:52): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary) (11:53): I move:

That the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER (11:53): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.

Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (11:53): by leave—I move:

That:

(1) Ms Templeman be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs;

(2) Ms Thwaites be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport;

(3) Mr Hill be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission; and

(4) Ms Payne be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER (11:54): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Mr Gosling to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission in place of Mr Burns for the period 7 to 15 December 2023, and Mr Burns to be a member of the committee in place of Mr Gosling from 15 December 2023.

Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (11:54): by leave—I move:

That:

(1) Mr Burns be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission on 7 December 2023 and that, in his place, Mr Gosling be appointed a member of the committee from 7 to 15 December 2023; and

(2) Mr Gosling be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission and that, in his place, Mr Burns be appointed a member of the committee from 15 December 2023.

Question agreed to.

Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (11:55): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I present the committee's report entitled Australian food story: feeding the nation and beyond, together with the minutes of proceedings.

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

Ms SWANSON: by leave—I present today the report of the inquiry into food security in Australia. Despite Australia being one of the most food-secure countries in the world, recent developments both here at home and abroad have shown that food security presents real and growing challenges for our nation. Food security is not something that any of us can or should take for granted. It requires ongoing attention from industry, the community and government.

There are a variety of threats to food security in Australia. Food security is already a challenge for many in our community—particularly those on lower incomes and in remote communities. COVID-19 disrupted our food supply chains, as did the recent floods. The war in Ukraine has driven up grain prices, and the cost of energy, fuel and fertilisers has also been impacted by this. Outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease in Indonesia have highlighted biosecurity risks to our food system—as has the arrival of the varroa mite on Australian shores.

The report's key recommendation is the formulation of a comprehensive national food plan. The national food plan will engage the whole food system, from paddock to plate and beyond. It will deal with the production and distribution of food, supply chain resilience, access to food, good nutrition, and the management of food waste. The plan will be overseen by a minister for food, supported by a national food council made up of industry and community experts. As part of this process, the food supply chain should be mapped and the vulnerabilities identified and addressed.

While Australia broadly speaking produces far more food than it consumes, there are two production sectors that require attention from government—dairy and seafood. The report recommends the adoption of specific strategies to expand domestic production for both.

Innovation has the capacity to improve and, in some directions, revolutionise the production of food in Australia and across the world. Opportunities for expanding innovation and value-adding in food production must be pursued. New industries—such as alternative proteins, protected cropping and vertical farming—have the capacity to enhance food security. Governments at all levels should commit to supporting these and other novel approaches to feeding our nation.

There are significant challenges around the cost and availability of inputs such as fuel, energy, labour and fertiliser. These challenges have the capacity to undermine food security. Local manufacturing of inputs and skills development are crucial.

Moreover, we need to encourage people to see the wide range of careers available in the food and agricultural sector at the cutting edge of technological and scientific innovation. Food production is much more than growing crops, even when you are growing crops.

Addressing food waste is a key aspect of improving food security. Tonnes of food worth billions of dollars goes to waste every year. The committee has recommended a number of measures to better manage food waste.

Biosecurity threats represent a real and significant risk to Australia's food security. We must be ever vigilant. The government must ensure that biosecurity is adequately funded, and that everyone understands their responsibility for protecting Australia from pest and disease incursions.

Food insecurity is a major challenge for Australians and affects significant portions of our population. A range of solutions is available, including better education around food and nutrition, providing school meals, researching the nexus between food and health, particularly mental health, and developing community food networks. Remote communities in Australia, particularly in our north, face unique challenges brought about by isolation, inadequate infrastructure, and the impacts of seasons such as the wet season. Resolving these challenges requires investment by governments in community-specific solutions.

I would like to conclude with some words of thanks for those who have contributed to the inquiry. The committee received a great deal of high-quality evidence from across the nation. In fact, we received 188 very high quality submissions. They weren't submissions where there were hundreds of them that were just generated by a computer; these were 188 handwritten and often really deliberative submissions, and I sincerely want to thank the people, groups, researchers and scientists and those who really put their shoulder to the wheel in trying to resolve this issue and made submissions. They came from a full range of perspectives. I would like to thank the individuals and organisations that hosted the committee at various places around the country and who provided insights into their contributions to food security.

I also thank my colleagues—my darling aggies as they were referred to on many of our long trips in vans and cars and charter planes across the length and breadth of the country. You know who you are, my hardworking committee, those of you that were able to come on the trips with us and take the evidence, and we did do a good job, although I know self-praise is no recommendation.

I want to especially thank the unflappable inquiry secretary, Dr Bill Pender, who has put so much work into this report, not only attending all of the hearings and taking incredibly detailed notes but also writing what I really feel is a major piece of policy work leading us forward in this space. Bill, thank you for that.

I also thank our research officer, Ben Vea Vea, who corralled witnesses and kept the show going at all times. Ben, you are an outstanding individual. We just need you to give up smoking and you'll be top of the pops. We want you around for as long as we can, mate. Both Bill and Ben travelled the breadth and width of the country with us.

Fran Denny, you are an exemplar, and your wise counsel as committee secretary is always welcome.

But my final thanks go to those who make the meals for the header and chaser bin drivers who eagerly await the headlights coming across the paddock, signalling the dinner break; those who get up early to drive the forklifts and trucks to the market; those who pilot the planes and boats; those who get up, oh, so very early for the cows and those who don't go to bed at all; those who manage the soil profiles and the overdraft; the kids who hear the conversations about when the rain will come or when it will stop and the impact that'll have on the crop; those who don the suits, do the hair and the make-up to market the commodities and lobby the lawmakers or the price setters.

From our farmers and families to our foodies we all have a role in the Australian food story—feeding our nation and beyond.

Mr WILLCOX (Dawson) (12:04): by leave—I rise today to support the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture as the deputy chair, the Honourable Rick Wilson, is on leave. The report: Australian Food Story: Feeding the Nation and Beyond is an outstanding report. This report is about strengthening and safeguarding food security in Australia, and what could be more important? Enormous work has gone into this report, and members have worked together right across the political divide to deliver a very solid report that will have longevity. There are recommendations for us to take forward and really provide food and fibre for our nation.

The committee received 188 written submissions from individuals, industry and community groups, and government bodies. The quality of the submissions was simply outstanding. We held 24 public hearings across the length and breadth of the country. We travelled to where it's at. I think that is important. It's a lesson for everybody: get out of the cities, go out into the country areas and have a look at where our food and fibre and our economy are actually driven from. The committee workshopped and agreed to 35 recommendations.

I would like to acknowledge the experience and professionalism of the committee chair, Meryl Swanson, and the deputy chair, Rick Wilson. I personally thank them for the inclusive way that this committee was run and the collaborative approach in developing the report. I would also like to thank all the committee members, all the people who provided written submissions and who hosted us at public hearings.

I acknowledge and thank the inquiry secretary, Dr Bill Pender, and research officer, Mr Ben Vea Vea. He is an outstanding young man who looked after us every step of the way. We were always on time, as was all the transport. Let me tell you, for some of the places we visited, it was no spring picnic to get in and out. Planes were cancelled, it was quite logistically difficult, but everyone in the committee put their shoulders to the wheel. Our chair, Meryl Swanson, drove us hard but we delivered a good result. At one point I was going to write a strongly worded letter to the chair to see if I could get a bit of support, because some of those days we worked 14 or 16 hours. We have delivered a very good report.

I want to thank the committee secretary, Fran Denny. I look forward to speaking to this report in a lot more detail because there's a lot to come from this. There's an enormous amount of work being done. I look forward to speaking in the Federation Chamber to deliver more detail about this very good report. I commend this report to the House.

Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (12:08): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned.

Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (12:08): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (12:09): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Law enforcement capabilities in relation to child exploitation.

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

Mr LLEW O'BRIEN: by leave—It's my privilege to rise today to speak on this report. This is a report from the joint law enforcement committee into child exploitation, and it's a comprehensive report. It's a report that I would recommend all parents and all concerned citizens read. This is a scourge that has afflicted our societies throughout the world, and the report addresses many of the ways that we deal with it and makes recommendations on what we need to do to enhance the framework on how we address this serious problem.

I want to commend the secretariat for their outstanding work in facilitating the hearings, the logistics associated with visits to places that were relevant to the inquiry and, as always, their advice throughout these inquiries, which is vital for us to come up with a final product to the standard that this one has. I also commend Senator Helen Polley, the chair, for her conduct in chairing the inquiry.

The nature of this problem is extensive. In terms of its evolution, we've always had evil individuals who would seek to in some way gratify themselves or profit from the exploitation and harm of kids. It's a horrible thing to even consider. But whilst the proliferation of the internet over the past 25 years has given society a lot of positives in terms of connectivity, access to information and many great things to do with industry, it has also come at a cost, and child exploitation—the sharing of this material and people profiting from this material—is one of the serious downsides to the internet.

It ranges. We heard evidence in this committee of horrible, horrible practices. People are taking advantage of young, innocent human beings, from extorting money or other things from them by way of getting images that they don't want people to see and using those, right through to evil people paying to see the live raping of children and little kids. That's what we're dealing with here. It truly is the worst of humanity. It's a complex problem to address. The internet has many facets. Whether it be the dark web—the organised groups who conduct these terrible atrocities are sometimes in countries that are very hard to police—we are doing our best as a nation here in Australia, and there are also many non-government organisations who are doing some extraordinary work. I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee in relation to this, particularly those people who, with the passion that they have, have chosen to take this on as something that needs to be stopped, and for good reason. We heard from a couple of local, home-grown NGOs—Project Paradigm, Destiny Rescue and Project Karma—who are all doing amazing work in this space. They are saving children. That's what they're doing: saving children.

The coalition's got a good record when it comes to the elimination of child exploitation. I don't think, at this point in time, there's anyone in this House that's done more to rid society of these evil individuals than Peter Dutton, the leader of the coalition. He was at the forefront. Under his leadership the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation was established. In 2020 it opened its doors. That will see these offences detected and children saved and helped out of horrible conditions. Also, we've implemented the Online Safety Act and the eSafety Commissioner, the regulatory body who enforces that.

There is good work being done. Only recently it came very much to everyone's mind when Operation Tenterfield was in the media. That was a horrible case where a man who was working in childcare centres was charged with 1,623 child abuse offences against 91 kids. That's in our country. That's an individual who was operating using these internet, dark web and technology tools to abuse children. I think that brought home to all of us that this is not just something that happens in Third World countries where people go to exploit poverty and find opportunities to take part in this horrible stuff. It happens right here amongst us, and we need to be forever vigilant. I commend the AFP for their investigation. The Australian Federal Police, along with the state bodies, are doing as much as they can with the resources they have. But we must look to every possible avenue to try and help them.

This report ran over two parliaments. I acknowledge the former member for Ryan, Julian Simmonds, and the great work that he did. He was the chair of the committee at the commencement of this inquiry, and he did some great work there too, establishing the Parliamentary Friends of Combating Child Exploitation in Australia and the ACCCE, and I commend him for his work.

During the hearings, we heard from a number of government departments. We heard about end-to-end encryption, which is going to make the task of detecting these horrible acts even harder, and about the major platforms embracing end-to-end encryption, which, as I say, will make the job of law enforcement harder. Unless we have a way that we can address this, more children will be the victims of child exploitation.

There were 15 recommendations that came from the report. They related to the monitoring of existing criminal offence frameworks and called on governments to monitor those to ensure their effectiveness. There were also recommendations in relation to the effectiveness of sentencing and the sentences that are handed down to these offenders once they are detected and captured by the justice system. There are recommendations in relation to the addition of community impact statements, where victims have the opportunity to speak and be a part of the process and the justice system and to help in their recovery.

I need to speak briefly about the dissenting report, because it is important. There were two elements to the report that coalition members felt were absent or not addressed in an adequate way. The first one lies at the very heart of the terms of reference, and that's our capability. This inquiry was all about the capabilities that we have to prevent, detect and prosecute in relation to child exploitation. Age verification is a tool that we have already. We certainly need to develop it more. We have the ability to trial age verification technology with sites such as pornographic sites that are able to be accessed by adults but obviously should not be accessed by kids, but at the moment there is virtually nothing stopping a child from accessing one of these sites. It's not just a case of the terrible circumstance where they're going to see some of the hideous things that are on these sites, but, once they get on there, they're going to be exposed to other individuals. There's the potential of them being in chatrooms and in contact with offenders that can groom them, and they will potentially end up as victims of child exploitation. We need a way to prevent them getting in there.

One of the recommendations from a report, Protecting the age of innocence, of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, chaired by the member for Fisher, was that the eSafety Commissioner create a road map for age verification, and they did that. This year it handed down its recommendations. This is the body that this place charges with keeping an eye on the online situation and enforcing the act that we created. Their recommendation was that we trial technologies that already exist around age verification. Recommendation 10 of the report that I'm tabling today says that government should consider this. Children are being exploited now. The technology is here now. I cannot impress too greatly upon this parliament the seriousness of this. We have had inquiry after inquiry. We need to do this now and it's with that urgency that this is a dissenting recommendation, and we call on the government to take the advice of the experts and the eSafety Commissioner and commence that trial.

The other recommendation of the dissenting report is in relation to aspects of the Australian sex offender register being public. This is another matter that the inquiry and the report examined, but the recommendation was absent from the committee report. There was nothing about this, and this is an important tool not only for law enforcement, where coordination of information relating to these evil perpetrators is consolidated, but also for good citizens who need to be protected. Parents should be able to access certain information to know whether their children are safe. That is the other recommendation from the dissenting report, and it was made because the committee report did not mention it.

Finally, I want to pay tribute to and thank those who work on the front line of this terrible set of circumstances: those officers who have to view things like those I spoke of earlier—children being raped and kids in the most distressing situations. I pay tribute to those people. As a former police officer, I know I couldn't do it. When it came to children in distress, that was my weakness, and I couldn't do that. It takes a very courageous and strong individual to be able to do that, and I conclude by thanking them for what they do.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (12:24): As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and on behalf of the Human Rights Subcommittee, I present the committee's report entitled The pursuit of equality: inquiry into the rights of women and children.

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

Mr NEUMANN: by leave—The inquiry was referred to the committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Senator Penny Wong, in September 2022. The terms of reference were broad in scope, which allowed the committee to gather evidence on a wide range of issues facing women and children around the world today. The committee received 49 submissions and held nine public hearings. Evidence was received from a range of stakeholders, including government agencies, aid organisations and representatives of women and children's rights groups both domestically and internationally.

Almost every witness and submitter in the inquiry told the committee members the same thing: the rights of women and children around the world are in decline. This is manifesting in a range of indicators, including rates of violence, exploitation and abuse of women and children. A combination of the impacts of COVID-19, climate change, and conflict and instability have led to this regression of human rights. Further elements, such as growing inequality and resistance from nation-states hostile to the international rights agenda, have further added to this situation.

While efforts have been made over decades to improve the rights of women and children, the international community continues to grapple with these issues. Without strong and urgent action, this will condemn multitudes of women and children to lives affected by abuse, neglect and violence. It is imperative that Australia takes the lead to reverse the tide.

The committee heard that the Australian government is doing a great deal of work in this space, including the recent release of Australia's International Development Policy and changes to the Official Development Assistance program. However, further work can be done to improve outcomes for the world's most vulnerable groups.

This report makes 10 recommendations which the committee hopes will address both the broader picture of the role of women and children in Australia's foreign policy, and specific issues that impact the rights of women and children. The key recommendations of the report include:

The creation of an international policy aimed specifically at children, similar to the current gender strategy;

Highlighting gender based violence as a key strategic issue in the International Gender Equality Strategy currently being reviewed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade;

The implementation of a suite of strategies designed to eliminate orphanage trafficking and tourism; and

Improving legislative responses to the rights of victims of child sexual abuse material distributed online.

The committee heard sensitive and harrowing evidence from victims of gender-specific violence, many of whom continue to live with the impacts of their abuse. On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to the victims who retold their stories so bravely to us, and to all the stakeholders and submitters who contributed to this inquiry.

I also thank the subcommittee chair, the member for Calwell, Ms Maria Vamvakinou, who did a great job in leading this critical inquiry. I also thank the deputy chair, the Hon. Senator Linda Reynolds, for her collegiality, cooperation and engagement during the inquiry. I thank also Ophelia Tynan and Kimberlee Armstrong, who helped draft the report, for the great work they did. I thank both of them, and they're here in the chamber. I also thank the committee secretariat generally, who performed with efficiency and effectiveness in what was a difficult, disturbing, confronting and controversial inquiry.

But particularly I want to give my thanks to the person in charge of this committee, Susan Cardell. Susan is about to leave the parliament, after working for decades in this place. Her service to our country cannot be underestimated. She has been efficient and effective in all that she has done. I have travelled with Susan overseas to various parts of the world. She always conducts herself in a most professional and expert way. The way she has led this inquiry and corralled all of us and the leadership she has shown are exemplary.

Susan, I know that you propose to continue your contribution to your local community in the same way you have contributed to our country. You intend to do voluntary work. I know that your son is currently now working in this place, having followed your lead. That contribution by your family is simply fantastic.

I want to thank Susan. People on both sides of the chamber would know her, and I think it behoves all of us to express our deep and abiding admiration, respect and affection for Susan. Thank you for the many reports and many inquiries that you have led and been involved with.

On behalf of the committee, Susan, I wish you well in your retirement. I know it will not be retirement; I know you will keep on contributing. Thank you very much, Susan.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): Given that there are no other members seeking leave to speak, does the member for Blair wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

Mr NEUMANN: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

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

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (12:31): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mr KHALIL (Wills) (12:31): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the following report entitled A review of regulations re-listing Jama'at Nusrat al-lslam wal-Muslimin and Islamic State Khorasan Province as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995.

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

Mr KHALIL: by leave—I present today the statement of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the review of regulations relisting Jama'at Nusrat al-lslam wal-Muslimin and Islamic State Khorasan Province as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995.

Under the Criminal Code, regulations may be made specifying an organisation as a terrorist organisation for a three-year period. Organisations can be relisted, provided the minister for the Australian Federal Police, currently the Attorney-General, is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation continues to directly or indirectly engage in terrorism or advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

The effect of being listed as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code is to trigger the application of offences for supporting or associating with the organisation in specified ways, such as being a member of, recruiting for, or providing funding to, the organisation.

The committee's review examined the Attorney-General's decision to relist these particular organisations. Section 102.1A of the Criminal Code provides that the committee may review a regulation which lists or relists an organisation as a terrorist organisation and report its comments and recommendations to each house of the parliament before the end of the applicable 15 sitting day disallowance period. This statement serves this purpose and is being presented within the required period.

In determining whether the regulations for the relisting of these organisations should be supported, the committee reviewed the merits in accordance with the Attorney-General's explanatory statement and statement of reasons for the organisations as well as other publicly available information. The committee also invited public submissions on the listings. No submissions were received.

The committee noted the following information about the two organisations.

Jama'at Nusrat al-lslam wal-Muslimin is a religiously motivated organisation whose primary goal is to build a Salafi-Islamist state in West Africa.

The organisation is primarily based in Mali but is active across much of West Africa, including Burkina Faso, Niger and Togo.

JNIM's activities have brought the organisation into conflict with the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali. Over the past decade, more than 300 peacekeepers associated with the MINUSMA—the mission—have been killed as a result of targeted insurgent attacks.

JNIM, the terrorist organisation, has been listed as a foreign terrorist organisation by the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

Islamic State Khorasan Province is a religiously motivated violent extremist group that adheres to extreme Salafi jihadist ideology promoted by the Islamic State. IS-KP, as they're called, are primarily based in Afghanistan; however, the group also operates in parts of Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran and Bangladesh.

IS-KP has been listed as a terrorist organisation since November 2017. Since the group were relisted in 2020, they have re-shifted their operational focus towards urban warfare in Afghanistan and parts of north-western Pakistan, which has resulted in an escalation of IS-KP's operations, particularly in Afghanistan.

IS-KP is subject to sanctions by the United Nations Security Council and IS-KP has been listed as a foreign terrorist organisation by the United dates, Canada and New Zealand.

There is evidence that these groups continue to be engaging in, preparing, assisting with or fostering terrorist activities that could potentially and profoundly impact the Australian people.

After examining the evidence that has been provided, the committee is satisfied with the relisting processes and considers that they have been followed appropriately for these organisations. The committee therefore supports the relisting of Jama'at Nusrat al-lslam wal-Muslimin and Islamic State Khorasan Province as terrorist organisations under division 102 of the Criminal Code in order to protect Australians and Australia's interests and finds no reason to disallow the regulations and the listing.

I commend this report to the parliament.

Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:36): I present report No. 19 of the Standing Committee on Petitions for the 47th Parliament.

The report read as follows—

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PETITIONS COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 19

Ministerial responses

7 December 2023

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP

Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP

Mr Sam Birrell MP

Ms Alison Byrnes MP

Ms Lisa Chesters MP

Mr Garth Hamilton MP

Ms Tracey Roberts MP

Ms Meryl Swanson MP

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

Report summarising the ministerial responses being presented.

The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 29 November 2023.

1. The following 21 ministerial responses to petitions were received:

From the Minister for Industry and Science to a petition requesting the establishment of a government assistance scheme to assist with the rectification of combustible cladding (EN4146)

From the Minister for Indigenous Australians to a petition requesting a referendum to remove discriminatory laws and acknowledge First Nations peoples in the Constitution (EN4425)

From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition requesting that all new coal and gas approvals be paused (EN4967)

From the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister to a petition regarding the remuneration of parliamentarians and superannuation arrangements (EN5130)

From the Minister for Industry and Science to petitions regarding the impacts of Artificial Intelligence (EN5163, EN5172, EN5215)

From the Minister for Indigenous Australians to a petition requesting the House vote against the Voice referendum legislation (EN5231)

From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding reinstating stripped citizenship (EN5232)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting that gender affirming care not be covered under Medicare (EN5252)

From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition regarding chemical deployments into the atmosphere (EN5255)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to petitions requesting that gender affirming care be covered under Medicare (EN5256, EN5257)

From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting that the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 be rejected (EN5258)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding the implementation of reforms to residential aged care facilities (EN5259)

From the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories to a petition requesting that the Australian Government override Australian Capital Territory legislation providing for the compulsory acquisition of Calvary Hospital (EN5264)

From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting the removal of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (EN5295)

From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition requesting the implementation of standards and requirements on new passenger vehicles (EN5317)

From the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to a petition requesting the classification of flea, tick and heartworm treatments as Schedule 4 in the Poison Standard (EN5359)

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding reports of human rights violations in Bangladesh and concerns about upcoming elections (EN5376)

From the Assistant Minister for Social Services regarding the Disability Support Pension partner income test (EN5382)

From the Special Minister of State to a petition regarding matters relating to the Australian Electoral Commission (EN5421)

From the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to a petition requesting an end to live animal export (EN5439)

From the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to a petition requesting an end to live animal export (EN5443)

Ms Susan Templeman MP

Chair—Petitions Committee

Ms COKER (Corangamite) (12:37): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present a corrigendum to the committee's report entitled Capability and culture of the NDIA.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:37): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present a corrigendum to the committee's report 9 of 2023, Department of Defence—Defence Fuel Transformation Program—tranche 2 facilities project.

Ms COKER (Corangamite) (12:38): Family is the foundation of a prosperous and optimistic nation, and the most critical time for a family is when children are born. The Albanese government recognises this, and that's why I'm proud to support this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. This bill will empower families to do well, it will invest in women's economic equality, it will give fathers the capacity to be more involved in their children's lives at a critical time, it will have significant benefits for the wellbeing of families, and it will help drive Australia's economy. The bottom line is that this bill will enable parents to have more time with their newborns—six months in total. Whether you're a single parent, a young couple with twins or an adoptive parent, this bill creates an even stronger foundation for families to do well. It will ease cost-of-living pressures and create greater capacity for parents to share parenting, build careers and earn a wage.

I recently met up with parents and some of my youngest constituents in Torquay at a multiple birth playgroup. They said expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks would make a real difference, advance gender equality and reduce the gender pay gap. Playgroup secretary Jemma Smith, the mother of one-year-old twins, said the changes to paid parental leave would have made a huge difference to her life with her boys, Angus and Charlie, when they were born. Longer parental leave would've allowed Jemma and her husband, Lachie, more precious time to bond with their children. She said: 'When you are the parent of multiples, you can spend a lot of your paid leave in hospital, so this would have been fantastic.' She also welcomed the extra flexibility that parents could exercise when taking leave to better accommodate the many demands facing working parents. Jemma said: 'It's so much harder to go back to work when you have twins. This would have been so helpful. Our family would have had a steadier income sooner.'

So, for young families like Jemma's and Lachie's, and for all of those who will soon have children, we are acting—acting to better support families. Many of these families will raise their children in my electorate of Corangamite, which is one of the fastest growing regions in the nation, with a significant cohort of young families. In the latest census, the largest change in my area was in the 30 to 39 age group, with a 30 per cent population increase. The urban growth area of Armstrong Creek, where my electoral office is located, is now the youngest locality in the region, with a median age of 30 years. There are similar growth areas, with many young families, in Bannockburn, Ocean Grove and Torquay. So, at a local level, this bill matters. It will directly benefit young families in my growing communities, and I'm proud to have advocated strongly for this much-needed legislation.

By giving more families access to government parental leave payments and providing greater flexibility in how they take leave, we're encouraging parents to share the important role of caring for children. In the process, we're advancing gender equality. These reforms mean that more women can work if they want to, to earn more and grow their super. Superannuation is particularly important for women. We know that women over 55 are the group most vulnerable to homelessness, and this is unacceptable. The reforms have been driven by our Labor caucus, which, for the first time ever, proudly has a majority of women. Our Labor government is absolutely committed to advancing equity and opportunity for women.

I seek leave of the House to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Ms COKER (Corangamite) (12:44): Superannuation is particularly important for women. We know that women over 55 are the group most vulnerable to homelessness, and this is unacceptable. The reforms have been driven by our Labor caucus, which, for the first time ever, proudly, has a majority of women. Our Labor government is absolutely committed to advancing equity and opportunity for women. Let us remember that, until 1972, around a decade before I entered the workforce, no major party had a women's policy, let alone a robust paid parental scheme. It was only under Labor, led by former prime minister Gough Whitlam, and his women's adviser, Elizabeth Reid, that a revolution for women's rights began.

Since then, our society has made significant strides in gender equality, but women still do the lion's share of nurturing and caring for children across our nation. For example, data shows that, only two years ago, women accounted for nearly 90 per cent of primary parental leave, yet 91 per cent of organisations do not discriminate between men and women taking parental leave. Over the past 40 years, there have been significant changes in the composition of Australia's active workforce. There have been large increases in the employment participation of women, who comprised 48 per cent of the total employed in 2022, compared to 36 per cent in 1979. Australian Bureau of Statistics data reveals that the most common reason women were unavailable to start a job or work more hours was caring for children. While we celebrate the incredible nurturing spirit of women, we must work together to create equitable opportunities for everyone: mums, dads and all parents.

Making life easier and more productive for Australian parents is critical reform. This is why paid parental leave reform was a centrepiece of our first budget, where we invested half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This is the largest investment in paid parental leave since Labor established it in 2011, benefiting over 180,000 families each year. Many in my community would remember that, in the past, dads were only able to take government paid leave at roughly half the rate of mums. The scheme was built on the gendered assumptions of primary and secondary carers, which limits parents' ability to share care. Our reforms have addressed that anomaly, and this bill we speak on today further addresses these issues by implementing the second tranche of our government's paid parental leave reform, announced in the 2022-23 October budget. It follows the first tranche we legislated at the start of the year to modernise the scheme to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed over the past decade. These changes, which commenced on 1 July, have given more families access to payment, given parents more flexibility in how they take their leave and encouraged parents to share pay. This is a strong foundation and will help parents across our nation.

This bill does many things. It builds on our commitment to support young families who are struggling to make ends meet. We know that raising a family can be expensive. It often means young people are unable to buy a house when they raise children. That's why, alongside our expansion of paid parental leave, we are working with states and territories to deliver the Help to Buy scheme, supporting up to 40,000 families in purchasing a home of their own. This will bring homeownership back into reach for thousands of families who have been locked out of the housing market. The Albanese government has already helped more than 50,000 Australians into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme, including more than 6,000 through the new Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee.

It is important to raise a couple of the things that are taking place in this bill. The bill will provide flexibility by increasing the number of weeks where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time. All in all, our reforms strike an important balance in increasing support for mums and encouraging dads as well. Many in my community will remember that men really do not get the same amount of time with children, and we want to see that both parents have an opportunity to play an active role at a critical time when children are so young. It makes such a difference to parents. So we are looking forward to being able to offer all families this opportunity. It means that more families will have roofs over their heads for their children, and our expansion of paid parental leave will help do this as well.

In closing, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 reaffirms Labor's commitment to paid parental leave. It is good for parents, it is good for kids and it is good for the wellbeing of families. It is good for employers and, importantly, it is good for our economy. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms TINK (North Sydney) (12:50): I acknowledge the words of the member for Corangamite. She eloquently summed up where we are at with this bill and the significant work that has been done to date. As a bill that seeks to improve the lives of working families in Australia whilst also improving outcomes for children and advancing gender equality, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 is indeed a welcome step in the right direction. Yet even in the face of its introduction, many in my community of North Sydney continue to lament the fact that Australia remains far behind much of the rest of the world when it comes to family support and paid parental leave provisions. With so much evidence accumulating around the world of the benefits of adopting progressive policies to support shared care and gender balance in a society, why is it that we as a nation seem to still be debating legislative reform that has been operating in some countries for more than four decades?

Australia can and should go further in adopting international best practice, including the payment of superannuation, unpaid parental leave, ensuring 26 weeks is the minimum leave entitlement for a family, and furthering the 'use it or lose it' provisions to encourage greater shared care. Shockingly, expanding the paid parental leave payment from 20 to 26 weeks by July 2026 is the largest investment in this scheme since it was introduced in 2011. In the time of at least four prior governments, this is the single largest investment we have seen in this scheme in over a decade. Our public policy is not keeping pace with societal expectations. In this context, I thank all who have been tirelessly advocating for these improvements over many years, and I'm grateful that this government is currently listening to voices of women and families.

Extending the period reserved for a non-childbearing partner from two to four weeks should better encourage shared care. However, as a mother of three, in the course of a child's life or, indeed, a baby's first 12 months, four weeks is barely a drop in the ocean. Encouraging both parents to share the responsibility of caring for young children fundamentally shifts a cultural expectation which currently frequently forces women into the primary care role regardless of what a family may desire. I believe our goal as a society should be to provide families with the maximum support they need to enable them to choose who the primary carer is and when without a gender biased lens brought no the discussion. As stated by one North Sydney mother: 'I think sharing caring responsibilities is critical. Men need greater incentives to pause their careers, and women need to be free from the patriarchal assumption they are better at the at-home piece and less likely to be able to support the family financially.'

International experience shows us the fastest way to address the gender pay gap is to introduce shared paid parental leave. When I first saw this in action in Finland in 1988, I was incredibly impressed by the impact such a practice had. At the time in Finland, every family expecting a child received an enormous box of products in the later months of their pregnancy. In that box was a pram, formula, bottles, nappies, indeed, pretty much everything a child or a family could need for the first 12 months of a baby's life. The box even doubled as a crib for the first six months of the child's life. In this way, that community was ensuring all children began life on an equal footing, and families, regardless of their economic circumstances, were supported in their decision to have a child.

The other thing that struck me while there was the clear expectation of shared parental responsibility, with each partner taking time to be with their child in that first 12 months. This isn't something that was forced on them. It was something they were empowered to choose, and, therefore, they were encouraged to do it. The long-term impact was absolutely evident in both the operation and the attitudes of their society. At the time, this was in stark contrast to where I'd come from here in Australia. At that stage, it still felt very largely like it was every woman, or perhaps even every baby for itself. At the time, our country was disputing single-parent payments, accusing women of deliberately getting pregnant so they could live off the government, whilst also making it clear that it was the man's job to provide for the family.

As the Grattan Institute noted in 2021:

Greater sharing of childcare is one of the best ways to improve women's economic security.

But I'd go one step further in asserting that greater sharing of child care is one of the best ways to strengthen family bonds and connection and, ultimately, improve community attitudes and behaviour. For this to be possible, however, flexibility and equity in approach are especially important. Ensuring both parents are encouraged and enabled to take leave during a child's first year of life can make a huge difference in the way a family and society operates, and it's for this reason we should be embracing this reform as a priority. My wish is that both my daughters and my son will know that, when they choose to have their families, our community is united in its expectation that they are equal to their partner in parenting responsibilities.

Recently the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce reported Australian women still face deep gender inequality and continue to shoulder a disproportionate burden of unpaid labour across all spheres of life. From being caregivers, nurturers and educators to taking on professional roles and community leadership, women's essential contributions are often undervalued and unpaid, perpetuating economic inequality. Outdated systems, policies and norms discount women from active participation in our society and our workforces. Indeed, the estimated value to the Australian economy that could be realised by purposefully removing the persistent barriers to women's full and equal participation in economic activity is an astounding $128 billion.

As one North Sydney carer said to me recently:

Being a full-time carer for a young child is such an undervalued role in society. It's an enormous undertaking to raise a healthy, happy, kind child with both parents working.

We are indeed fortunate to live in this country, yet it must be acknowledged that the Australian Paid Parental Leave scheme is one of the least adequate in the developed world. Not only is the leave significantly less than OECD countries' average; it presents significant gender inequality and limited access to services and leaves Australian families facing financial hardship. If current working patterns continue, the average 25-year-old woman today who has just one child can expect to earn $2 million less over her lifetime than the average 25-year-old man who becomes a father. How can this be allowed to be so in our nation? The North Sydney community have shared with me the difficulties with the current Paid Parental Leave scheme, with 75 per cent of them expressing that their leave time was simply too short. The global average of total paid parental leave entitlements available to mothers is 54.1 weeks. That's over two times more than what we are aspiring to offer here in Australia under this bill.

So how do we continue to build on the efforts of this bill to further improve the lives of many working families in Australia at the same time as improving outcomes for children and at the same time as advancing gender equality? Firstly, as mentioned in the final WEET report, North Sydney joins in calls to legislate the payment of superannuation on all forms of paid parental leave, with 100 per cent of North Sydney constituents agreeing superannuation should be paid on parental leave, when they were recently consulted. An inequitable labour market and household career dynamics have resulted in a superannuation gap of approximately 23 per cent at retirement age between men and women. In the 2019-20 fiscal year, the median superannuation balance of a woman aged over 65 was $168,000, compared to $208,000 for men. I understand this is a measure the Treasurer has said the government would like to implement when there is budget to do so, yet to date there has been no action in this area. Given that modelling done by KPMG has estimated that this reform could cost as little as $200 million, I call on the government to prioritise this investment, as we all know the truth is governments choose to afford what they want to afford. The security of our families and the strengthening of our broader social constructs should be just as important as investments in weaponry or fossil fuels.

Secondly, North Sydney supports calls for the 26 weeks paid parental leave to be the minimum leave entitlement and calls on the government to do more to phase the scheme up to an eventual 52 weeks of paid leave, whilst maintaining the principles of shared care and flexible arrangements. ABS data from 2021 showed 24.7 per cent of respondents cited 'caring for children' as the main reason they were not available to work, with women of all ages spending nine hours more per week, on average, on unpaid care and work than men.

While 26 weeks of paid parental leave covers the child's first six months of life, there are indisputable benefits to introducing 52 weeks of paid parental leave spread across two parents, with modelling showing that a scheme such as this would only cost the government an extra $600 million a year. In turn, this investment would boost GDP by $900 million a year, thanks to increased workforce participation by mothers, whilst also boosting the average mother's lifetime earnings by $30,000.

In the words of a North Sydney constituent, 'Living in Sydney is expensive. Without paid parental leave we can't afford to pay our mortgage, with rates going up, and will have to go back to work sooner. Please advocate for the professionals, the women, the supportive men that want to care for their children. We need to support men to take time off to care and bond with children and we need to enable women the right to choose when they return to work.'

The commitment of this government to women's economic equality is evident in the measures included in this bill, and the benefits of purposeful action can already be seen in the reduction of the gender pay gap to 13 per cent. But we still have so far to go and there is no time to rest on our laurels. As a society, we must decide who we want to be, not just in the next three years but over the decades to come. I implore this government and this 47th Parliament to be that moment, to be the moment that we decided, as a nation, that it was time for us to embrace equity: gender equity, racial equity, financial equity and social equity—indeed, equity in every meaningful way—and, ultimately, invest in moving our society forward.

Mr LAXALE (Bennelong) (13:02): Becoming a parent changes your life. It happens so fast, and it's never really what you expect. You try and prepare for it—you read the books; you read blogs online—but it's always so much more than you prepare for. And, as parents know, the early days with a newborn are the most extraordinary. In amongst the fog of bringing a newborn home—or two newborns, as was my experience—I still somehow remember those early days with each of my children. Even after the two weeks they spent in the neonatal intensive care unit, where we were able to ease into new parenthood, I still remember getting home and saying to myself: 'What next?'

Because of the Labor government, I was able to spend some time at home in those first few weeks. Thanks to a Labor government, my kids' mum was able to stay at home for much longer. We were able to do that because of Labor's paid parental leave. At the time, we were one of the last countries in the OECD to offer it, and it was well overdue. Now, reform is also overdue. It's time to make paid parental leave better. I was lucky to be able to spend those early days with my kids. Paid parental leave is a lifeline for parents navigating the challenges of childbirth and the responsibilities of raising a child.

Thirteen years ago, the first Labor member to hold my seat of Bennelong stood in this place and proudly spoke to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010. When she won the seat of Bennelong in 2007, only 54 per cent of female employees and 50 per cent of male employees had access to some form of paid parental leave, and only one-third of employed women with children actually received paid parental leave from their employer. Of course, as is always the case, the women left out were low-income workers—women who worked in early childhood education, in care industries, in retail and in cleaning.

The work of my predecessor and that government she was a part of marked a pivotal turning point. It had a commitment to rectifying the imbalances in access to paid parental leave and ensured that, in law, every working parent, regardless of their socioeconomic status, had the opportunity to embrace the joys and challenges of parenthood without undue financial strain.

The groundbreaking Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 laid the foundation for a more equitable future. Today we can see the enduring legacy of that policy. The majority of employees in Australia now have access to paid parental leave, whether provided directly by their employer or by the government. Because of that, there has been a fundamental shift in how our society values and supports those navigating the complexities of work and parenthood. That's the lasting change that great policy can achieve. It goes beyond the legislative text; it transforms lives, shapes futures and creates a ripple effect that extends far beyond the halls of this parliament.

The legacy of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 is not merely in numbers or percentages; it's in the countless moments of connection, the shared laughter and the warmth of family life. It's being with your partner at a really challenging time. It is in the empowered women in our community who, once left without this support, can now navigate the challenges of parenthood without sacrificing their economic and career security. It's in the fathers who, encouraged by policies promoting shared care, can actively and more easily participate in the upbringing of their children without fear of professional repercussions. It's a testament to what great policy and forward-thinking governments can achieve: policies that help transform people's lives.

Just as a former Labor government knew when it created the Paid Parental Leave Act to fit the circumstances of that time, we know that the landscape of our nation has evolved. Our understanding of family dynamics, of gender roles in parenting and of the intersection of work and life has expanded, calling for a recalibration of this policy to align with the contemporary needs of Australian families. Since we've come to government, we have undertaken the reform needed in a methodical and meaningful way. This bill, today, is another example of that.

In the first budget, we invested half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This historic investment, the largest since Labor established the scheme, will benefit over 180,000 families each year. It's a reflection of this government's dedication to improving the lives of working families, fostering better outcomes for children and advancing women's economic equality. This bill builds on the changes we made to modernise the Paid Parental Leave scheme earlier this year.

These changes, which, if the bill is passed, will begin on 1 July, will give more families access to the payment, offer parents greater flexibility in how they take leave and encourage parents to share care. This amendment will allow us to provide even more comprehensive support to working families.

The bill, if passed, will expand paid parental leave by increasing the length of time of payment from 20 to 26 weeks. It will also double the period where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time from two to four weeks. Starting on 1 July 2024, two additional weeks of leave will be added each year until 26 weeks are reached in 2026. This expansion is not just a numerical increase; it's a qualitative enhancement to the support we provide to families during a crucial time in their lives. The journey to parenthood is always diverse and the pathways in family life are always varied. Extending the leave duration responds to the needs of families, offering an extended period for parents to bond with their newborns and establish the foundations of a secure family unit. As it stands right now, up to 18 weeks are available for one parent—usually taken by the mother—with two weeks reserved for the father or partner. The proposed increase to 26 weeks means mothers can access up to 22 weeks paid parental leave, which is an additional month compared to the current scheme. As mentioned, it also doubles the period reserved for the partner from two to four weeks.

This expansion is not just about extending financial support; it's about recognising the importance of parental involvement with a newborn from the very beginning. Crucially, this expansion sends a clear message that parenting should not always rely on one parent. This bill and the changes being proposed acknowledge that parenting is an equal partnership. The government value men as caregivers too, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and in our communities. In Bennelong, where families come in all shapes and sizes, we understand that diversity extends beyond ethnicity and gender; it includes the diversity of roles within a family. This amendment acknowledges and cultivates a culture of shared care and reinforces the importance of both parents in the upbringing of their children. It's a recognition that family responsibility should be shared and parents' roles in their families should be viewed as equal.

When the government announced our paid parental leave reform in the October budget, we entrusted the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce with providing advice on the best model for 26 weeks to advance women's economic equality. The taskforce recommended reserving four weeks for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and allowing parents to take up to four weeks of leave at the same time. This bill reflects that advice. This decision is not just about meeting a quota. It's about creating an environment where families can thrive and where one partner can pursue their ambitions and, where applicable, the other can be an active participant in the lives of their children.

Our government is not blind to the fact that paid parental leave is not just a social policy; it's an economic imperative. As the global economic landscape evolves and we work towards greater economic resilience, we must recognise the pivotal role that families play in sustaining our nation's growth. Our national birthrate matters, and it's absolutely imperative that governments of all persuasions do what they can to make sure that having a child does not become an economic burden. Expanded paid parental leave will ensure families are supported at a time when they are less likely to work. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all concur that one of the most effective ways to boost productivity and workforce participation is to provide families with more choices and flexibility and greater support. This isn't an economic theory; it's a reality that resonates across schools, homes and businesses in Bennelong and right across the country.

Paid parental leave, when done right, can be a powerful catalyst for advancing gender equality, and the Albanese government is committed to fostering an environment where women can thrive in both their professional and their personal lives. The reform proposed today is not an acknowledgement of the challenges faced by women; it is a commitment to dismantling barriers that exist and to creating opportunities.

For many families in my electorate of Bennelong, this reform means more than just financial assistance; it will signify the recognition of the immense value of the early years of a child's life. It'll mean the ability for parents to be present during those precious first months, to witness those amazing first milestones and to create a foundation of love and security for their kids. It'll help foster an environment where the burdens of balancing work and a newborn are alleviated, enabling parents to make choices that align with the unique needs of their households at a challenging time. It recognises that every family, regardless of its composition, deserves the support and flexibility to nurture its children in an environment of love and understanding. It's also a commitment to equality, acknowledging that all parents—irrespective of gender or circumstance—should have the opportunity to be active participants in the early days of their newborn's life.

In a world that often moves at a relentless pace, access to paid parental leave—and expanded access, for that matter—becomes a promise that, as a community and a government, we value and prioritise the wellbeing of families and newborns. This amendment is more than just passing a law; it's investing in the future and prosperity of Australians, and it's another sign of our clear commitment to an inclusive and well supported community. By providing flexibility in how parents can arrange their care, we hope to ensure that the support offered is adaptive to the unique circumstances that define Australian families. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr HAINES (Indi) (13:14): I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. As a former midwife and academic who researched maternal and child health outcomes and remembering my own experience in returning to the workforce and balancing work and care, I know the importance of support for parents in those early years. I'm particularly thinking of all the parents-to-be and growing families in Indi who this bill will benefit. Last year, more than 1,500 parents and families in Indi accessed government paid parental leave in our region. I really want to see this number increase, and I absolutely hope this bill will help do that.

This bill creates a pathway to increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 2026, in line with international best practice. It also increases the number of weeks of paid leave reserved for each parent so that by 2026 each parent will have four weeks of use-it-or-lose-it leave. I'm very pleased to see the government extend the weeks that are reserved for each parent and for which they can't transfer the paid leave entitlement to the other parent. It's a take-it-or-leave-it approach, and this is vital to improve gender equity in this country. Evidence continues to show that a significant gender pay gap between men and women persists in Australia. A major factor, if not the major factor, to this gender pay gap is the unequal division of unpaid caring labour, including caring for children. In Australia, despite 92 per cent of employers offering parental leave regardless of the gender of the parent, only 12 per cent of those who take up the offer of primary carer leave are men. This shows that women are leaving the workforce at a much higher rate than men to care for children, contributing to the gender pay gap. It's absolutely not good enough, especially when other western democracies like ours have made significant improvements to close the gender pay gap.

I spent many years studying and working in women's and children's health research in Sweden, a place to which, alongside other Nordic countries, we have looked for guidance on best-practice policy for families. In those days, my Swedish colleagues regularly asked me why we did not have paid parental leave in Australia. It was as fundamental to them as Medicare is to us. You can understand why: Sweden introduced a use-it-or-lose-it system in 1995, reserving a month of leave specifically for fathers. This increased to two months in 2002 and three months in 2015. It's absolutely incredible, when you think about it, that Australia is not offering four weeks until 2026, almost three decades after it was offered by Sweden.

The Swedish experience provides strong evidence for incentives for fathers to take up paid parental leave. The total proportion of leave days used by men has slowly increased from seven per cent of all parental leave in 1989 to 25 per cent in 2013. Furthermore, the percentage of couples that share parental leave is slowly increasing, indicating a more equitable distribution of child rearing. Evidence shows that a use-it-or-lose-it system of reserved leave for the non-birthing parent or father is particularly effective when combined with income replacement so those taking paid parental leave don't just receive the minimum wage. Evidence shows that the use-it-or-lose-it entitlement, alongside income replacement of 50 per cent or more of earnings, can increase the uptake of leave by non-birthing parents.

The government should consider whether wage or salary replacement should be implemented alongside the use-it-or-lose-it approach as we continue to strive to support unpaid carers, no matter the gender. Based on what we've learned from the long history of parent leave in Sweden, I encourage the government to fund an effective and targeted campaign to ensure that non-birth parents are actively encouraged to access these new benefits.

Paid parental leave is critical to support families, advancing gender equity and promoting greater workforce participation, but these measures will not be most effective without tackling the crisis in child care. Back in February, when the government introduced their first reforms to improve paid parental leave, I spoke about how important it is to also address the drastic shortage of early childhood educators and childcare places right across the country. Now, 10 months later, we have still not made enough progress on this important piece of the puzzle for parents.

In Indi, parents frequently contact me about how hard it is to find places with local early childhood education and care centres. One mother, who lives in a small town in Indi, has had her youngest child on four waiting lists for months—one for at least 18 months. For families living regionally, early learning centres can be an hour's drive away in a neighbouring town because local centres are at capacity or simply don't exist. This mother is struggling to keep her small business open, which means fewer shifts for her workers. She says: 'Families need child care here desperately. Something, anything, needs to be done. People can't work. Women in particular can't go back to work after maternity leave if there is no-one to care for their children.'

Another mother, a social worker, told me of the ripple effects of the lack of access to child care, the struggle to undertake work and further study, and the reliance on her supportive mother, herself an aged-care worker, and her sister, a childcare educator, who are both taking time off work to care for their grandson and nephew. This mother says: 'I understand that there's been government incentives for childcare rebates; however, there is inadequate staff to fill positions due to the underpaid staff feeling completely burnt out.'

That's what I'm hearing from owners and managers of early childhood education and care centres across Indi. In the past week I've visited three centres in Benalla and Wahgunyah. The predominant issue that these childcare providers shared with me was the difficulty they faced in trying to recruit, train and retain staff to meet the demand of their communities. One centre has more than 100 children on its waiting list. Another paused enrolment because of a lack of staff. One centre manager told me they've lost staff to the local supermarket because the pay there is better.

Early childhood educators teach children throughout the most foundational and formative years of their lives, yet our system does not recognise or remunerate that work appropriately. We must find practical outcomes to attract people to become early childhood educators to meet the demands of the community and help parents to return to the workforce after parental leave, particularly in regions.

One of my constituents, a local GP and parent of two children, wrote to me saying that she and her husband, also a GP, are both extremely motivated to live, work and raise their family in regional Australia, yet it's feeling too hard. This constituent said: 'The need for an urgent overall in the way child care is offered in this country, but particularly within the regions, is imperative in sustaining a productive environment, and one that continues to attract families to live and work.'

We need GPs. We need healthcare workers, teachers, social workers and aged-care workers to return to our workforce, and a lack of early childhood educators is one factor that's stopping this from happening. This is deeply concerning. Lack of affordable, available and high-quality early childhood education and care is having detrimental consequences for parents, for children, for the regional workforce and for the regional economy.

This problem, especially in regional, rural and remote areas, is not just anecdotal. In recent weeks, the Productivity Commission released their draft report on early childhood education and care, and their findings paint a pretty bleak picture. Only eight per cent of the country has enough access to centre-based day care to provide at least three days of care for every child up to five years of age. The commission found a big reason for the lack is a lack of workforce. A survey of 1,000 childcare centres conducted by the United Workers Union last month found that 90 per cent of centres have a current staff vacancy. The survey found that in regional and rural areas which don't have access to casual agency staff, providers were resorting to closing centres early and turning children away.

The Parenthood, an independent not-for-profit advocacy group for available, high-quality, affordable child care, published more evidence last month about the desperate situation of regional child care. Their report found that children living regionally or remotely are denied—and their hardworking parents and carers are denied—the opportunity to access early childhood education and care. This report included stories just like the ones I've shared from my constituents.

The evidence is mounting: early childhood education and care is inaccessible in regional, rural and remote areas, and the impacts of this are dire. I call on the government to implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission to improve child care in this country, especially in regional, rural and remote Australia.

First, child care should be fully subsidised for three days a week for lower income families to ensure all children can access child care. Second, the Productivity Commission recommended that these families not have to meet work or study requirements to access three days of child care. More childcare support for low-income families would really help my constituents. Indi has the 50th-lowest median wage out of 151 electorates. This puts Indi in the bottom third of electorates for wages.

Third, the commission recommended that more must be done to improve career and qualification pathways for early childhood education. The Productivity Commission was very clear that workforce shortages must be fixed. Commissioner Stokie said:

Without addressing the educator and teacher challenges, we can't do anything.

They found that fixing workforce shortages is critical to setting Australia on a path towards universal child care. That path needs to be determined, but it is clear that increasing wages and workforce participation is key.

I acknowledge the government has provided additional funding for fee-free TAFE to provide more training for industries like child care, which is a really positive development. More work must also be done to acknowledge prior learning by educators who seek to upskill and stay in the sector, and I hear that consistently. The government also recently announced funding to open 55 new early childhood education services in regional communities and more support for existing services to stay open. These are great measures. I congratulate them on them, but, frankly, they're not nearly enough. I said this in February, and I'm deeply disappointed that I'm saying the same thing again 10 months later.

In addition to the Productivity Commission recommendations, I call on the government to look at the many intersecting factors that are causing worker shortages, including for childcare workers in regional and rural Australia. I support measures that make it easier for families to balance work and care, particularly in those crucial first months of a child's life. Measures such as the bill that's before us will make a difference. I very, very much welcome this for the families of Indi. I very much welcome it for both partners in a caring relationship with children.

If I step back to the research that I undertook many years prior to coming here, the transition to fatherhood, in particular, is stymied by the inability of many men to come back to the workforce. This measure that we are debating today is critical for getting both partners, of either gender, back into the workforce, and doing so in a financially sustainable way. It's critical.

I commend this bill as a step in the right direction to help working families. But I say that the government must do a whole lot more for families, especially in regional, rural and remote Australia, and especially when it comes to child care.

Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (13:26): When I found out about the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 I was very excited to put my hand up and say: 'Yes. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with and support.' This is an example of the way that governments can tangibly help families. I think it's really, really wonderful. This particular bill is a great example of a triple whammy effect: being great for children, great for parents and also fantastic for the economy.

Labor has a strong legacy on parental leave. One of the people I'd like to pay tribute to is Senator Pat Giles, who was one of the architects of the original parental leave, where we got to see parents leave and then return to their workplaces. We want to see parents return to the workplace, as opposed to what we've seen in the past, where people have left workplaces. This is something that's truly wonderful.

I have lived experience of this, and I would not be the only person. I'm sure that there are people here in this place, as well as people in the gallery, who have seen how wonderful it is that we have access to this. The Albanese Labor government is looking at the way that we can tangibly fix this and continue to improve it. We want to make sure that we continue to improve the lives of all Australians. As a working parent I recognise that there's this tricky balance of work and care, and it's a constant juggle. This is something that tangibly helps parents. The juggle is real. This is something that we're trying to help families with.

When people find out that they're becoming a parent, it's a pretty exciting time, but sometimes it can be quite overwhelming. The thought of taking time off work and what that means for household finances can be quite challenging. This will tangibly help families. I know that sometimes it can be a challenging time, where you think about financial, emotional and physical implications. These are choices that parents have to think about: whether to work or whether to care, and whether there is actually a choice to do one or the other. Sometimes it is about choices that are based purely on finances as opposed to their hearts and what they really want to do. So I think this is something that will help families be more flexible about what they really want to do and what they want to choose, and I think it's wonderful that this government is providing more tools to help households decide on what to do, particularly for the birth of their first child.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.