Julian Hill's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Migration | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
Do they want to cut child visas? Which industries would you cripple? Which nursing homes would you close? Which regional healthcare centres would you close down? Which parts of the defence and...
Do they want to cut child visas? Which industries would you cripple? Which nursing homes would you close? Which regional healthcare centres would you close down? Which parts of the defence and other industries do you not want to see staffed with skilled workers? Be specific. Don't bring the general smears. The other measure—and I'll address the points made—is net overseas migration. It was too high post COVID and the borders reopening, and it's now falling. It's over 40 per cent down in the last couple of years. Think about it like this, for anyone actually interested in the facts. Net overseas migration plummeted during COVID to negative for the first time since World War II, because—who knows?—if you shut the borders and no-one comes in, it plummets. Then it spiked, when the borders were reopened, for about 18 months or two years, as Australians came back—Australian citizens count as net overseas migrants—and partner visas, students, working holiday-makers and agricultural workers stuck offshore came back. It spiked, and now it's coming down, exactly as the government said it would. The rise was a bit higher, but not because of arrivals. This is the big lie. It was because departures were slower than predicted, because we had the lowest average unemployment in the country for over 50 years. So, if you want to come in here with the smears, deal in facts. There are two things that you got wrong there, Member for Kennedy. You said most students don't leave. That is not true. It's a falsehood. Most students go home. It's our fourth biggest export sector. International education supports more than 250,000 Australian jobs.. I see the Minister for Education here. It's critical to the internationalisation of our universities, to our global research partnerships, to jobs right across Australia and to our global rankings at our top universities. Most students go home. Some of them stay. They become some of our most highly skilled contributing migrants. That's a pretty good deal for the taxpayer with an ageing population. Their home country pays for the first 20 years—their early childhood education and primary schooling. Their taxpayers pay. They come here and pay, at a profit, for an Australian-standard education, and then they work and pay taxes for 40 or 50 years. It's a pretty good deal for the country. But really the trick which has been done here—we see this on social media and, sadly, the member for Kennedy has chosen to come in here and repeat it—is the big scary number. What they're doing is taking parts of the arrivals without looking at the departures. They just pick random numbers and put them on social media and say there are a million people coming. It's just rubbish. It's not true. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. What we have is a competent government, but we do not have a functioning opposition. They're terrified of, and yet cuddling up to, One Nation. They're calling for massive cuts to migration, but they never come in here and say what they actually want to cut. And Pauline Hanson lives rent free inside their heads. Paul Keating said in 1996: The great tragedy of the shamelessly regressive politics of Pauline Hanson is not so much that it is rooted in ignorance, prejudice and fear, though it is; not so much that it projects the ugly face of racism, though it does; not so much that it is dangerously divisive and deeply hurtful to many of her fellow Australians, though it is; not even that it will cripple our efforts to enmesh ourselves in a region wherein lie the jobs and prosperity of future generations of young Australians, though it will—the great tragedy is that it perpetrates a myth, a fantasy, a lie. The myth of the monoculture. The lie that we can retreat to it. We are diverse and the key to being an Australian is respecting each— (Time expired)
We don't have polygamy. This is a nonsensical smear that people like you spread on social media. It really is ridiculous. It's juvenile.
Despite pressure from every state and territory saying they want a higher migration program, the government has kept it constant at 185,000. We have an ageing population. In 1980, we had about...
Despite pressure from every state and territory saying they want a higher migration program, the government has kept it constant at 185,000. We have an ageing population. In 1980, we had about seven workers paying tax for every retiree. We now have about 3½, trending towards three. You cannot run a labour market, staff the aged-care homes or run our industries, and the healthcare system would collapse, without the contribution of skilled migrants. So I just want to get a few facts in the debate. I say to anyone who wants to bring this debate, in the community or the parliament: be specific. Don't come here with generalisations and smears on groups of people. I look at the government bench over there. This reflects modern Australia. This reflects multicultural Australia. I don't know what that is, but it does not look like the country that we are. It doesn't look like the country that we are today. But anyone who wants to bring this debate needs to say specifically what they want to cut. Do they want to stop Australians from falling in love with people from overseas and say, 'No more husband and wife for you; you can't bring it here because people say we have to massively cut migration'? Do they want to cut—
The size and the shape of our annual migration program will always vary depending on our national and economic interests. It's been true under this government. A fact to inject into the debate is...
The size and the shape of our annual migration program will always vary depending on our national and economic interests. It's been true under this government. A fact to inject into the debate is that the permanent migration program this year is 185,000 people. Last year it was 185,000 people. Seventy per cent of that permanent migration program are skilled visa holders. The rest, predominantly, are family—partner and child visas, predominantly. Despite population growth, despite demand, including in regional areas in particular, for skilled workers and despite pressures on family reunions, that number has remained unchanged. Every state— This is just a tactic to interrupt because I want to respond to the points made.
I thank the member for Kennedy for bringing the debate. I do welcome a chance to talk about migration and integration, the two core topics in the motion that you've put before the House. This...
I thank the member for Kennedy for bringing the debate. I do welcome a chance to talk about migration and integration, the two core topics in the motion that you've put before the House. This matters to the work of my portfolio. I spoke in my first speech nearly 10 years ago this July extensively, though, around the role of migration and human diversity as our nation's defining characteristic and greatest strength. They are the words that I said then, and they're words that I believe now. It also matters to Australians now. The best I can say about some of your contribution is that you are reflecting some of the fears and the anxieties fuelled by misinformation and by things that we see that we don't like, some of which you've outlined, that are completely unacceptable, and I'll talk about that. I'll say clearly at the outset that migration has been too high. Migration has been too high, and the government is bringing it down. But there is nothing more Australian than a migrant. Everyone in this country except Indigenous Australians—everyone or their ancestors came from somewhere. Since 1945, more than six million people have chosen to make a permanent life in Australia. Every region, every town, every sporting club, every suburb has been touched by generations of migrants. Migrants are our relatives, our friends, our work colleagues, our business leaders, small-business people, researchers and more. Last year, we marked a number of anniversaries in this country. We marked the 80th anniversary of the first Department of Immigration, put in place by the Curtin Labor government to help with World War II rebuilding. We marked the 50th anniversary of the Racial Discrimination Act, the last big bit of legislation by the Whitlam Labor government, which laid the foundations for equality in this country—that everyone is equal under the law, regardless of their race or ethnicity or background, and that everyone has the right to equal participation. We marked the 50th anniversary of the contribution of large-scale Vietnamese migration to our country and the 40th anniversary of the Hawke Labor government's access and equity strategies, providing for the right of everyone to fully participate in Australian society. In years to come, we can look back on last year for the establishment of the Office for Multicultural Affairs, bringing together investment, services and policies, and a milestone that I'm really proud of: the one-millionth humanitarian migrant welcomed to our country since World War II. That was late last year. One of the stereotypes that I cannot stand is the one that humanitarian migrants come to our country to get on welfare. It's deeply offensive. They're far more likely to start businesses and to have a crack than other Australians. In the year 2000, six of our country's then eight billionaires came to this country as humanitarian migrants and refugees. I want to address the two key issues in the motion. The level of migration is a legitimate debate to bring, but it needs to be based in fact. There is no mass migration in this country. Even in that rabble opposite, their shadow minister for immigration admitted this in a moment of honesty. You turn on the TV and look at what's happening in much of the Americas and Europe. They suffer from mass migration. We do not. We have a tightly controlled set of borders.
Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025, Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
That's right—out your way, Member for Gorton. It was an incredible set of stories—absolutely fantastic. There was a single mum with a couple of kids who said she can't study at home....
That's right—out your way, Member for Gorton. It was an incredible set of stories—absolutely fantastic. There was a single mum with a couple of kids who said she can't study at home. She gets a bit of support so she can go to the study hub and actually get her assignments done and do her study, hungry as she is to complete her bachelor's degree. And, of course, there is the needs based funding model. The ATEC will lead the implementation of needs based funding and the Managed Growth Funding System and work to progress that more joined-up tertiary system we need. The government is investing an additional $2.5 billion in the medium term to introduce the Managed Growth Funding System and a demand driven, needs based funding system. These are also big structural changes, because, in a more managed system, we're trying to swing the pendulum back to the middle. It's neither a centrally planned system bureaucratically controlled to the nth degree, where Canberra allocates all the students and all the courses, nor a largely deregulated system, where every institution has the same incentives and, frankly, where the big elephants—at times in the Go8 but also elsewhere—can go hunting and eat everyone else's food. We can't see a system where most of the students go to eight or nine universities, starving the others—which are critical for access in the suburbs and the regions—of students who are also bright. It is a more managed system, and that's what's come out of the accord and has broad support. Importantly, though, no university will be going backwards and universities with higher enrolments will get more support. I'll just touch on the last couple of points. I heard some of the contributions; wearing my Assistant Minister for International Education hat, I'll make a couple of points. This bill is about building the house and getting the legal basis for the commission. There's work underway; the government has asked the interim ATEC to progress work, which it's doing with the sector, to look at the right approach for the domestic student allocations and the funding models. We've started to move towards needs based funding with regional loadings and equity student loadings. The ATEC is doing further work, and then that will come back in, or can come back in, in a subsequent bill. Similarly, with the international student allocations, which a number of speakers have touched on, the ATEC should have a role in allocating international students as part of mission compacts. I make the point really clearly that each institution can have its own mission, its own mandate, to serve its community—whether that's a region or a part of a metropolitan area—and focus on its areas of excellence and research, the right blend of teaching, its international profile, offshore international partnerships. But what kind of cake are they trying to bake? What kind of entity are they trying to create? That's the mission compact. What's the vision? International students have to be part of that. Some universities want a very small percentage of international students; that's the kind of experience they want to create. Others are big, particularly in their postgrad—a lot of the Go8 are big globalised institutions—where they want a truly international experience in some of those courses. That's OK, but each university has to go through the discipline of articulating their vision, their mission, what they're trying to create and get that agreed through the mission compact. There's more work to come, but I really commend this bill to the House. We'll have a look at what the Senate inquiry puts forward and listen to sensible suggestions, but this is a really big structural reform.
I listened carefully to a few of the opposition speakers, and I feel sorry for them, in that it must be quite painful sitting on the barbed-wire fence. On one hand, there were some very good...
I listened carefully to a few of the opposition speakers, and I feel sorry for them, in that it must be quite painful sitting on the barbed-wire fence. On one hand, there were some very good points made there—they were quoting some of the Senate submissions—but, on the other, I'm still none the wiser as to whether they support the bill or oppose the bill. Time will tell. There were a lot of feelings, a lot of opinions, a lot of anxieties and a lot of worries, but there was not much clarity or anything even resembling a policy or a voting position. This is a huge reform, though, for the tertiary education system. I think it'll take years or decades for Australians to look back and realise just what a significant moment this is—to recreate an independent commission to steward the tertiary education system, in particular the universities, but not only the universities. And I'll get to that. I just want to affirm one thing the previous speaker said, and that is about the importance of regional education, and then I'll go back to the substance of the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025. This government agrees with the importance of regional education. It's one of the reasons we've put in place the university study hubs—to improve access to education for regional and outer suburban students—but there's a really big systemic reform. I'm not going to take lectures, the sanctimony or the little backhanders suggesting that somehow the government's been against regional education. It's quite the opposite. Under their whole previous term of government, a regional student was funded exactly the same as a metropolitan student, even though everyone knew it cost more to teach a regional student than a metropolitan student. In response, over the last couple of decades, many of the regional universities have set up these CBD campuses to teach students, often international students, in the cities; make a bit of profit; clip the ticket; and pass the profit back to help fund the cost of teaching regional students. I'm not going to victim-blame like many in the opposition are doing or like the Menzies Research Centre's ridiculous, dodgy so-called research paper they put out a couple of weeks ago using data that was either three years old or that was just made up—it didn't exist. It was a rational response by the regional vice-chancellors to deal with the structural funding problems. We're putting in a regional student funding load to add a load so that a student taught in a regional area will get some extra funding, as they should. I also heard of the coalition's love and fondness for the university sector. I would remind the member opposite—I don't know whether he was a member here under the former Morrison regime, the cabal, with its secret ministries and dodgy decisions. He got up one budget, and they cut $3 billion from the university sector. The question was 'what are they going to do about that?', and he said, 'You should just go and recruit more international students.' And then, at the same time, the same prime minister and the mob opposite were saying the universities have gone and recruited too many international students—to make up for the funding that the Liberals and the Nationals cut. Back to the substance of the bill. It introduces an independent commission to steward the system. The last commission was created, I think, in 1943 by the Curtin Labor government, by John Curtin. It was under Curtin's influence, actually, that the Commonwealth government began to take a bigger role and a bigger interest, structurally and systemically, in education, which, constitutionally, was primarily a matter for regulation by the states. The Universities Commission was set up first in 1943, but, by July 1945, Commonwealth policy under the Curtin government and then the Chifley government provided for the establishment of a Commonwealth office for education, legislation to place the Universities Commission on a more permanent basis, grants to universities to meet the costs of buildings and facilities and associated expenditure connected with the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme, and the establishment of a truly national university. In fact, it is still the only university that's regulated by Commonwealth statute created by the Commonwealth—the Australian National University. They were big changes. Then, in 1988, as part of the Dawkins reforms under the Hawke Labor government, the judgement was taken that that system had run its race, and the previous Universities Commission was abolished. It did set the system up for incredible success. For all the culture wars and the bagging of universities—there are some social licence issues, no doubt. I met with the Go8 vice-chancellors this morning, here in Canberra, and had a pretty direct discussion about some of that. But, for all the culture wars that abound, we have incredible universities in this country. If there's anything that punches above its weight, surely it's our university system. Three per cent of the world's research and knowledge output is generated here in Australia, which is well above its population share. We have multiple universities ranked globally in the top 100. That's something we can be proud of, but it's a choice we make as a country. We can choose to fund universities properly, to fund research and create new knowledge, or we can choose not to. Well, this government chooses to chase excellence. Those 1988 reforms set the system up for success. They expanded access to university to millions of Australians who were previously locked out and improved research quality. They set up the institutions for success. But the truth is like any big structural reforms the world changes, and they've run their race. Indeed, many of the architects of those reforms I've seen quoted as contributing—through this debate, from the accord and in other things like this that have flowed from the accord—have said they're surprised that some of those reforms lasted as long as they have. The government's judgement, flowing from the accord, is that we need to move past the system that we've created where every university—metropolitan, regional, research intensive, teaching intensive, highly ranked or focused on access—operates under the same incentives, the same funding structure and the same requirements. One of the key recommendations from the accord is to have a trusted, independent commission to steward the system. I acknowledge the previous speaker's comments about seeking reassurance that the ATEC, the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, is intended to steward the system and not be another regulator. That is indeed what the bill provides, and that is the government's intention. As well as universities, I'll give a shout out to the non-university higher ed providers, who are commonly called private providers or colleges. They teach a large number of students in Australia, international and domestic, and the ATEC needs to have a role in understanding and shaping their contribution to the system, but it also needs to take a broader view for vocational education and training to create a better, more joined-up system to break down the 'black and white' barrier between TAFEs, VET and higher education. This is a critical part of meeting the government's bold target, an ambitious target, to see 80 per cent of Australians in the workforce have some kind of tertiary education qualification by 2050. It's not university snobbery, as some might say. It includes certificates, diplomas, graduate diplomas and vocational education and training. The system needs to be more integrated, and we need to value all parts of the tertiary system. Tertiary education is absolutely critical for our country's prosperity. It changes people's lives—individually but also collectively—it creates new knowledge, it supports society to solve important challenges and problems, and it supports industry to apply that knowledge. This Labor government's focus on education builds on a fine Labor tradition. It's not about equality of outcome; it's about equality of opportunity. Every kid in Australia, no matter where they're born and no matter their family upbringing or their economic circumstances, should have the same access to education and a fair crack at life. John Curtin's belief in the value of education never dimmed. In 1932 he wrote: The pursuit of knowledge is far more important than even knowledge itself. That is why the Labor movement has always striven, even passionately, for educative opportunities for all. It's my mum's story, it's been part of my family's story, and it's the story of many people in this chamber—first in family to go to university or TAFE or even to complete year 12. This is a bold goal, and it can only be achieved with big changes. One change is in how the system is steered, which is the ATEC—long after many of us are here, the Tertiary Education Commission should still be there steering and shaping the system to fulfil those goals in the accord. Another change is in how the system is funded. I touched on some of that, but if time permits I'll mention more of that. We need to focus, though, if we're going to achieve that goal, on certain parts of Australia and particularly on the regions, the outer suburbs and disadvantaged communities where participation is low. There are many parts of our cities, particularly the wealthier suburbs, where frankly those kids are going to go to university anyway or will pursue TAFE if that's what they wish. But there are many parts of our cities, including in some parts that I represent, where the participation of young Australians in post-school education is far, far lower than the wealthier parts of our country. So the ATEC is going to have to focus on what the system needs to do, what universities need to do and what the vocational training system needs to do as an adjunct to get those young Australians into tertiary education. I agree with the previous speaker's contribution too that it's not all from school to tertiary education. Life is not a linear progression these days. Many people will go in and out of the tertiary education system while they're working, whether it's for sabbaticals and study breaks or blending study with work as they go on through their lives. It does mean changing the funding, though, so that students not currently going into tertiary education are supported to do so. That's what free TAFE is about, and I acknowledge the work of the Minister for Skills and Training and the Prime Minister's focus on free TAFE, which as of, I think, the last couple of weeks marks its three-year anniversary. We've seen more than 775,000 free TAFE enrolments and more than 210,000 completions, with hundreds of thousands of students still studying. It contrasts with the contribution of the now opposition leader—well, she's today's opposition leader; we'll see what tomorrow brings, or Wednesday or Thursday or Friday; we'll see if she lasts the week—on free TAFE: 'It was a waste of money, and, if you don't pay for it, you don't value it.' Well, hundreds of thousands of Australians have said they do value study in these critical skills shortage areas, and that's a good thing for our country. Also, there are study hubs. There are 20 regional and 14 suburban study hubs, which are about bringing higher education closer to those students who are not able to access campuses or whose families or family circumstances have meant they're not able to access, or haven't had the support to access, tertiary education. I was very pleased on behalf of the minister last year to launch the Melton study hub in outer-western Melbourne.
Translating and Interpreting Services Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'll just respond to a couple of points made there. All Australians are equal under the law, whatever language they speak and whatever culture they have. I don't think there'd be anyone here who...
I'll just respond to a couple of points made there. All Australians are equal under the law, whatever language they speak and whatever culture they have. I don't think there'd be anyone here who would disagree with that. I'll point you towards—you've probably read it but not recently—the Hawke government's 1989 statement on multicultural Australia. In my view, it's probably the best articulation and expression we've had since Al Grassby's work in 1973, taken up by the Fraser government in 1978 and then the Hawke government's seminal statement in 1989. I think after that there was Turnbull and then there was the Gillard government, or Gillard then the Turnbull government. The 1989 statement had a really good definition of multiculturalism. It talked about individual and communal rights to cultural expression. We've always been a multicultural continent. We've had First Nations Australians speak more than 250 languages; 167 of them are still spoken today. British settlement and then the expansion of European settlement changed the face of the continent. It's complex history, but we can have empathy in hearing different perspectives. Then our democratic system of government flowed from that—our institutions that I'm proud of and I think most people here sign up to. But then, of course, there was the miracle of modern Australia, where for 50 years overwhelmingly we've been peaceful. We've been the most successful multicultural country. I do think, though, that a lot of what you expressed there, Member for New England—put aside some of the fears and anxieties, and we can argue about how policy is applied—has already been the traditional expression of multiculturalism. It's the rights that come from individual and communal cultural expression. That includes speaking your first language when and where you want to. English is our common language, and I'll touch on that in a moment. But the rights have always been within defined limits. It's not just in the law but is, as people say, in values. There have always been defined limits. To the extent that some in our society may have lost focus on that and think that these rights are untrammelled, that's a problem. We would do well to remember this: the other bit is that coming to Australia also comes with obligations—and the Prime Minister has talked about that extensively in recent times and before then—one of which is that you leave your ancient prejudices and hatreds at the door. My definition of an Australian—it's a working definition and always open to feedback—is 'anyone committed to our country, to our democracy and our institutions and our values'. There are values set in the Home Affairs migration stuff. I don't think they're heavily contested. Add to that the principle of mutual respect for their fellow Australians. Hate and violence don't stem from diversity; they spread from polarisation and social distance and misinformation. I know from the conversations we've had about many issues that many—I won't say all, but many—of your intentions are good. But I do worry deeply about the utter meltdown that we're seeing with the so-called alternative government, and I refer you to my Sky News interview this morning. I've encouraged some of my opponents to get their act together for the good of the country because, frankly, I think the opening it's provided to the party you've now joined is a disgrace, and it's causing fear and a spike in racism and hostility in my community. I don't believe that the conflation with issues of race and migration is accidental with the so-called Nazis, those who are more extremist. People have every right to be concerned about migration, but the conflation with issues of culture and race then does a lot of active harm to people who I represent. Anyway, there you go—something resembling a genuine exchange. The Translating and Interpreting Services Bill 2025 does put TIS National on a sound constitutional and legal footing, and that's critical to the functioning of modern Australia. English is—say it clearly and proudly—our official and common language. It is important these days, and increasingly important, to have a good command of English. We want as many people in our country as possible to speak English. You have better opportunities in the labour market, you can better connect and you can better understand what's going on in society and fulfil your human potential in our country. We provide a lot of support for that. For 77 years we've had the Translating and Interpreting Service in our country. We have the Adult Migrant English Program, we have community based classes and we have the state and secondary classes to welcome new kids who don't speak English. That's really important. But you don't have to have perfect English to be a good Australian. You don't have to speak English to university standard or without an accent—or with whatever accent the previous member seems to think is acceptable; I don't know. You don't have to have perfect English to be a good Australian. The reality also, for some people who come to our country later in life on parent migration or humanitarian pathways or others—or for people with cognitive disabilities in family groups, who we see through the community—is that, try as hard as they might, they're not capable of getting to the standard of English that allows them to function and participate in society. It doesn't make them stupid and it doesn't make them bad Australians; it's just the reality. There are also many people in my community and across the country who have a reasonable command of English, but it's not sufficient for really complicated things—serious health issues, financial issues, insurance, legal proceedings, justice proceedings and so on. The work that TIS National has done over many years is absolutely critical to the functioning of our society and economy. Although English is our official and common language, we are proudly multilingual. We have over 300 languages regularly spoken in Australia—hundreds in my electorate alone—and the language ability of our people, of our citizens, is a bridge to the world. It's a bridge to human understanding. It's a bridge between families and generations, and it also facilitates trade and economic opportunities. People in Australia can speak pretty much every language in the world, and most of the dialects. There are a few from the Pacific islands and others—and PNG and others—that we've struggled with at times because they're particularly rare, but overwhelmingly the breadth of languages and the multilingualism are enormous national assets. It's something that the government values. It's been part of modern Australia for decades. You know, you couldn't play with your Greek friends on Saturday mornings because they'd be off at Greek school. Now, in my electorate, it's 60 or 70 languages that I've counted that kids are studying on weeknights or weekends, whilst English is also their main language. I was really proud to be part of a government that, at the election, committed another $25 million to the community language schools across Australia. Language also brings new ideas and concepts into our country, in that translation is only ever an approximation of meaning. There are some things—natural phenomena, feelings, ideas, events, people, emotions, concepts—which only exist in their first language. There are words that, when any professional translator looks at them, will make their head explode because there's no actual word that's equivalent in another language, and they have to try and explain around that. People come to Australia with other languages as their first language. It might be the language they want to speak when they shut their front door at home or speak with their friends—who honestly cares? I've said clearly that a good command of English is really important to participate in society, but we're enriched by this linguistic diversity. It's something we should treasure. I see firsthand, though, the importance of the work day in, day out in my electorate of translators and interpreters. My office in Dandenong literally could not function without the work of professional translators and interpreters and the six, seven or eight languages, depending on who's in on a given day, that my staff speak and use regularly throughout their work. The same is true for our businesses and for our economic sector. Smart insurance companies and smart finance companies are getting this. I made the point before that people can speak perfectly good English, but they think, 'Hang on a minute—I don't want to sign that document without making sure I really understand every word, because there are some really big funny legal words there.' You need a professional translator and interpreter. They might pass an IELTS test to a certain level, but they're still not professional in legal or medico-legal language. Who is, really? It's jargon—hospitals, schools, police, lawyers, emergency services, Centrelink, government agencies—at every level. Large swathes of the government and the private sector in this multilingual country could simply not function without the work of TIS National and the broader translation and interpreting profession. We've seen in natural disasters, and we saw during COVID, the importance of having language ability that could quickly be used to get messages out to communities. We see it in emergency services and in hospitals. We see it, as I said, in prosecutions, and we see it with some of the most vulnerable people in society. Some of them, as I referred to earlier, are good human beings and good Australians who love this country. But for whatever reason—their family circumstances, their cognitive abilities, their opportunities—they've just never managed to master English. They might have gone—and we see it, sadly—to English classes for years. It reminds me of trying to learn to swim as a kid. Mum took me every Saturday; I still couldn't really swim. There you go. I want to give a shout-out, though, to a group of informal interpreters who are often overlooked: the kids of refugee families. A very traditional pattern is that the refugee kids come to this country with families that are hungry and that are entrepreneurial. They're more likely to start a business than any other Australian and to have a crack. In the year 2000, six of our country's eight billionaires had come here as refugees. That defies the silly stereotype we hear too often that they all come to get on welfare. It's kind of offensive when you look at the data. But the kids of refugee families grow up very quickly. Almost always, those kids learn English. They get it in primary school, they speak it, they understand society and they understand the systems. But their mothers in particular are often stuck at home with caring responsibilities for some years before they can even get out of the house to get to the English classes. It's just the nature and reality of life. The kids are often put in situations, from a very young age, where they're being asked to interpret in really inappropriate situations, whether it be family violence, medical emergencies or diagnoses, police or other community organisations, or businesses coming to the door. So I give a shout-out to the kids involved, but there are many occasions when those families really should be accessing professional translation and interpreting services. The bill is a comprehensive legislative framework. It gives TIS National a clear statutory basis. Robodebt was an absolute disgrace of the former government, but the royal commission exposed the malfeasance. The most vulnerable in society were sent fake debt notices by the Commonwealth for money they didn't owe. Robodebt has impacted all areas of government post the royal commission—and sometimes, frankly, in a ministerial role it's a pain because the Public Service has taken a recommendation, and taken it seriously, to review the constitutionality and legality of a whole range of things that the Commonwealth has done for years. This is one of them. They've said: 'You know, when we have another look at this, we're not so sure about the legal basis on which everything's been done, so we're taking it seriously. We're methodically going through all areas of government and making sure that they are on a sound constitutional and legal footing.' So I commend the Minister for Multicultural Affairs for doing the proper work of government and bringing this legislation forward so that TIS National can continue to operate. It provides services for all three levels of government as well as the private sector and individuals: 24/7 telephone interpreting supporting triple zero emergency services, hospitals, courts and other urgent needs; remote video interpreting; onsite interpreting; document translation services; and so on. Last term, I had ministerial responsibility, and it was really fabulous to go and see firsthand the staff doing the work—their passion and their commitment. Workforce issues we can deal with another day. They've got a bit of an ageing workforce and a workforce structure problem, largely because of how governments have chosen to procure for many decades. The gig economy doesn't work that well with younger people, so we need to have a look at that with the states and territories. But I really commend the work of translators and interpreters right across the country, and I'm pleased that this legislation has been brought to the House.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
For the families and loved ones of those 15 people who lost their lives in this horrific antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach, no words can ever be enough. We've been honoured by those who found the...
For the families and loved ones of those 15 people who lost their lives in this horrific antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach, no words can ever be enough. We've been honoured by those who found the strength to come to Canberra and observe today's parliamentary condolence motion. The searing grief and pain does not pass quickly when you lose someone you dearly love. Grief is personal. It comes in waves and ebbs and flows as it does its work over time. But grief is magnified, in these circumstances, beyond what most of us will ever have to bear—the violent murder of loved ones, made worse because it was not random. It was terror, targeted at people simply because they were Jewish. Our hearts also go out to those who survived but who endured unimaginable scenes of horror—trauma which will stay with them but not define them. The worst ever terrorist attack on Australian soil was designed to spread fear and division, with maximum impact at the iconic Bondi Beach, a place globally renowned, showcasing the best of Australia's egalitarian nature—a place where generations of Jewish Australians had gathered to be and celebrate together, including, as we heard earlier, generations of the member for Macarthur's family. 14 December saw the very worst of humanity—evil, hate and murder—but also the best of Australia: love, courage, sacrifice and solidarity. The Prime Minister and other speakers have spoken of the remarkable acts of courage that Australians witnessed: first responders whose work saved lives; victims and heroes who risked and, in some cases, sacrificed their own lives to save the lives of others; Boris and Sofia Gurman, who were killed; Reuven Morrison, who was killed; and Ahmed al-Ahmed, a true Muslim, unlike the cowards who murdered the innocent. Australians in my community and across our continent have been utterly horrified by this terrorist attack. It is to our nation's abiding shame that, in the very moment when Jewish Australians should have been safe, celebrating Hanukkah on the beach—an ancient tradition of light over darkness—they were not. This was even more poignantly so because amongst those murdered was Holocaust survivor Alex Kleytman, who found refuge and shelter in Australia from the horrors of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime. 14 December was also, for many Australians, a grievous loss of national innocence. We've prided ourselves on the fact that we don't do guns, we don't do mass shootings and we don't do intercommunal violence in Australia. Things like that happen elsewhere—on TV, not here. Yet a toxic mix of antisemitism and ISIS inspired violent extremism fuelled this attack. As others have observed, though, extremism in all its forms is the enemy, including right-wing nationalist Nazis. The very fact that we have to say Nazis in 2025 is abhorrent. Australia failed those 15 people who were killed and also the Jewish community more broadly. We must now confront why and how, and do everything within our power, as a nation, to ensure this never happens again. An attack on any Australian because they are Jewish is an attack on Australia itself—on the very idea and the reality of modern Australia. The promise of modern Australia is the great Australian promise of a fair ago—that everyone gets a fair crack at life here and is welcome, safe and belongs, no matter their identity. In return, Australians expect people to commit to Australia, our democratic system of government, our institutions and our values. They expect them to accept the Australian covenant that all citizens and those welcomed here must accept—that people leave their hatreds and prejudices at the border and recognise the strength that is our diversity and the spirit of mutual respect. For Jewish Australians this covenant has been broken and must be repaired. The ancient scourge of antisemitism must be confronted. Last week I shared tea with a Jewish constituent who illustrated it like this: everyone knows those bushfire danger ratings signs with the big arrows that sit at the side of the road. They rate the daily fire danger from 'low' to 'catastrophic'. The reality for Jews today is that when they leave their house, when they are visible or when they are gathered together, they are always quietly rating the danger, and it's not low. The risk is made visible by the shamefully necessary spread of security fences, measures and guards at Jewish places. But the silent calculation of danger is always done. As an aside—not to claim equivalence or create a binary—the sad reality is that this danger calculation is one that Muslim women and others in my electorate make every day, too. However, that's a speech for another time. Terrorists seek to spread fear and divide us so that we turn on each other. We mustn't let them prevail. Put simply, social cohesion is how we live well together, how we treat one another, how we debate our differences and how we share a sense of fairness, even when we disagree. Social cohesion means respect, participation, belonging, trust and shared responsibility. If we confront antisemitism effectively and renew the Australian covenant, then we make life better and safer for all Australians—for every single one of us today, for all our kids and for all those who come after us. Tomorrow the parliament has important legislation to pass. As the Prime Minister said, the terrorists come with hatred and bigotry in their hearts and guns in their hands, and so we must respond to both the motive and the method. Let's hope that those opposite can put love of country, love of Australia, over their hatred of each other and come together in national unity, as Australians deserve in the face of terror.
Hussainzada, Ms Fariba, Hussainzada, Farzad, Afghanistan | Adjournment | House debates
I speak with a heavy heart to acknowledge a tragedy that has deeply affected my community. Fariba Hussainzada and her six-year-old son, Farzad, lost their lives in the waters of the Dandenong...
I speak with a heavy heart to acknowledge a tragedy that has deeply affected my community. Fariba Hussainzada and her six-year-old son, Farzad, lost their lives in the waters of the Dandenong Creek. Fariba, originally from Afghanistan, had been living in Australia for 10 years. She was a loving mother of three and, when her little boy slipped into the creek, she did what any parent would instinctively do. She tried to save him. Her bravery in that moment was extraordinary. Unfortunately, both mother and son lost their lives. This devastating loss has torn a family apart, leaving a four- and a one-year-old without their mother. The whole community—it's a tight-knit community in Dandenong, and a growing Hazara community—has been left in mourning. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Fariba and Farzad's family, and to the grieving community in my electorate. Please know that we stand with you in this time of grief. I'm proud to represent the largest community of Australians born in Afghanistan—of any MP in this parliament. Afghanistan is a diverse country. It is rich in cultural traditions and languages. Fourteen ethnicities are acknowledged in the national anthem, and they live alongside many other, smaller ethnic groups and tribes. Modern Afghanistan has a proud but complex history that is sadly marred by tragic cycles of violence. While there will never be a single view of history, no part of Afghanistan or Afghan society has been immune from violence or persecution—whether Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik, Uzbeks or any other of the ethnic groups. While Australia's relationship with the state of Afghanistan endures, Australia has no intention of accrediting a representative of the Taliban or establishing diplomatic relations with the Taliban. I'm pleased, though, to have formed a new Parliamentary Friendship Group for the people of Afghanistan. This group has been formed to express Australia's support for the people of Afghanistan, and to serve as a forum for parliamentarians to engage with advocacy groups—including those working on refugee issues, human rights, women and girls—and for international engagement on issues related to the ongoing humanitarian and economic crisis in Afghanistan and across the broader region. Millions of Afghans have been displaced. I'll write shortly to all members and senators inviting them to participate. Afghans have long been a part of Australian society. The Afghan cameleers arrived from around 1860, and helped to explore and develop inland Australia and build our nation. While relatively small in numbers in Australia, subsequent waves of migration from Afghanistan have enriched our country, including people coming as skilled migrants, business migrants, students and—more recently, since 2021—humanitarian migrants fleeing bloodshed and repression from the Taliban. The Taliban remains one of the world's most medieval regimes, utterly repressing the rights of women and girls. They act against any reasonable or defensible view of human rights in the modern world. Since 2021, Australia has provided more than $260 million in humanitarian and basic needs assistance to Afghanistan, with a strong focus on women and girls. Almost 27,000 visas have been granted to Afghan nationals under the offshore humanitarian program, many to locally engaged employees who have worked with Australia's defence, foreign affairs and aid staff in Afghanistan for 20 years. Fulfilling the promise—as best we possibly can in difficult circumstances—to bring them to safety comes in the year that we mark the one millionth humanitarian migrant Australia has welcomed since World War II, a bipartisan endeavour over decades. I will always stand up, speak up and work with all parts of my community. Like any responsible leader in Australia, I've never sought and never will seek to weaponise ethnic or religious divisions. It's important that every political, religious and community leader sets a positive example of inclusion and working together for our young people. Let's hope that this friendship group allows us to recommit to working together here in Australia, in a spirit of trust, to build a positive future for the whole community and to do what we can with other nations to improve the lives of those still suffering outside our borders. I'll finish with a note of thanks to my staff. The bulk of the work of my electorate office still relates to the ongoing trauma of the Taliban in the Afghan community. People flood the office every day seeking to bring their families to safety. We do as much as we humanly can, but a lot of that burden falls on the staff. They speak Pashto, Dari, Hazaragi and Farsi. They do the very best they can, and I thank them deeply for the trauma that they endure.
Happy wedding anniversary to the member for Casey.
Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The member for Werriwa has read one of my press releases! You can talk about that, too, when you get up. The previous speaker mentioned that it was a deep surprise that there'd been a sanctioned...
The member for Werriwa has read one of my press releases! You can talk about that, too, when you get up. The previous speaker mentioned that it was a deep surprise that there'd been a sanctioned sponsor named and shamed. Well, I say genuinely to the member: the legislation has been operative for a bit over a year. It takes proper process and time, and natural justice. You've got to be fair to the employers. You've got to do the investigation. Actually, let's go back to basics: you have to put the money in, employ the staff, train the staff and then send them out. You have to have public servants to go and do the enforcement—also a shocking concept, given the tens of thousands of staff they stripped out of the Public Service; there was almost no enforcement capability left in the Department of Home Affairs. I say to the member: in addition to the naming and shaming of that sanctioned sponsor, there are legal worker warning notices, compliance notices, enforceable undertakings, prohibited employers, employer sanction infringements, nonvoluntary location and human trafficking referrals—so there's been a whole range of sanctions put in place that the staff now working in the Australian Border Force are able to employ, and in many cases are employing. This bill comes as the latest part of a package of reforms to address migrant worker exploitation. We've put in place a range of pragmatic measures that focus on strengthening the legislative framework available under the Migration Act and the enforcement capabilities of the department and the Australian Border Force to address employer noncompliance. That includes enhancing protections to encourage temporary migrants to report exploitation and resolve workplace issues in a timely manner. The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Act amended the Migration Act with the following measures—I will outline a few of them for context because they work as part of a package. This is just the latest part of the package—and, to quote the member for Moreton, from last night, we like a big package! It's good reform. There are three new criminal offences targeting employers and others in the labour chain for misusing migration rules to exploit temporary migrant workers; a new power to prohibit employers found to have engaged in serious, deliberate or repeated exploitation of temporary migrants from employing additional temporary visa holders for a period; increased penalties for breaches of employer obligations under the Migration Act; and new compliance tools, which are the ones I touched on earlier—compliance notices and enforceable undertakings—to support a proportionate response to the issues of noncompliance. I'll close where I started: the vast majority of Australians would not morally put up with migrant worker exploitation. It's a thing you hear about in the media, but some of these most vulnerable human beings living in our society on insecure visas are incredibly vulnerable to exploitation. It is that threat that rogue employers—most employers don't do this; most employers are decent—can make, using that power imbalance to coerce a vulnerable employee, be it through wage exploitation or sexual exploitation. As I said, Border Force, with these powers and resources, are now making reports every year of suspected human trafficking. We have a very clear agenda as a government to raise the wages of Australians. Part of that is indexing the minimum wage that employers have to pay migrant workers, and part of that is stamping out migrant worker exploitation. Debate interrupted.
I know. It's a strong competition. I'm thinking within my portfolio space. You know, keep it narrow. I don't want to go too broad. It's late at night. But the decision to uncap the work hours...
I know. It's a strong competition. I'm thinking within my portfolio space. You know, keep it narrow. I don't want to go too broad. It's late at night. But the decision to uncap the work hours that international students could work to allow them to work unlimited hours turned our high-quality student visa—our premium student visa—into some kind of low-rent guest worker visa. It corrupted the student visa pipeline. We're still paying for that today, with the non-genuine students that the Morrison government let in, working their way through the ART appeals system and gaming it. We're still paying for that failure today. It's the same principle: if you let too many low-skilled workers in without the right safeguards, it actually drags down the wages of Australian workers. As we know, that was their policy. This bill is another key step to strengthen protection for migrant workers that helps all Australians. The bill seeks to enhance protections by introducing a public register of approved work sponsors. It implements a commitment that the government made in the migration strategy. There's a sort of shock-horror routine from those opposite: 'Ooh, where did this come from? Who made this up?' Well, it was in the migration strategy. I know those two words would be unfamiliar to them because we inherited a complete and utter mess in the home affairs department. They'd sacked over 1,500 workers and destroyed the capability of the Public Service. Peter Dutton, Scott Morrison, the whole legacy, the whole cabal, were up there with the Australian flag behind them. They'd run out of Australian flags for every press conference. But when you look behind the curtain, when you look under the hood, there's no compliance. There is literally no enforcement going on in the Department of Home Affairs that we inherited. We did the migration review, we did the Migration strategy, we set out the things we're now implementing to tighten up the system and we're rebuilding the enforcement capability in the Australian Border Force—and that's a proper agenda. This bill is the next step. It complements the register of sanctioned sponsors published by the Australian Border Force. I thank the previous speaker and acknowledge something I haven't heard before: he read out one of my press releases. I've never met anyone who has read any of my press releases, so I'm very grateful to the member who spoke.
I think you had 58 seconds to go, after all those fine words, when you finally fessed up that, despite all the concern about exploitation of migrant workers and all the noble sentiments, you're...
I think you had 58 seconds to go, after all those fine words, when you finally fessed up that, despite all the concern about exploitation of migrant workers and all the noble sentiments, you're actually not going to vote for the bill. This is not 'a half-baked proposal', to quote you; this is something that came out of the Migration Strategy, following the migration review, that is responding to a serious problem, which is the foul, disgusting, shameful, ongoing exploitation of migrant workers. Let me address two of the points that the member for Nicholls made. Firstly, in relation to the TSMIT, let's be very clear about what we heard there. We heard 3½ minutes of a circular argument, but, when you strip it back, what the member opposite was arguing for was lower wages. That's not a surprise, given the entire economic management philosophy of the previous government was a 'deliberate design feature' of their economic management to keep wages down. The member spoke of the shock and outrage at the TSMIT. For those listening at home, that's the temporary skilled migration income threshold. It's the minimum amount that an employer bringing in a migrant worker has to pay them. He said: 'This is terrible! It's jumped from $53,000 to $70,000!' Shock, horror! Well, do you know why? It's because, in their nine years in government, those opposite didn't index it. They held it at $53,000. So, in real terms, employers were able to bring in workers year after year and pay them less and less. Guess what that does? The economic labour market analysis was absolutely clear: it holds down the wages of Australian workers. When employers can too easily bring in migrant workers and pay them a pittance, it holds down the wages of low-skilled Australians. That was absolutely clear. It was established through parliamentary inquiry after parliamentary inquiry with labour market submissions and labour market analysis. But, of course, they did nothing about it. They wouldn't index the minimum wage that you could pay migrant workers, because that was their agenda—to hold down wages. Their ministers actually said it. I want to be very clear about and put on the record what they actually meant by that. Secondly, we learned about the opposition's argument for 'greater flexibility' in visas so that it's easier for employers to bring in low-paid workers. So, when you hear all the hysterical rhetoric and the chest beating from most of the opposition backbench, undermining their leader and calling for massive cuts to migration—they'll never actually specify what they want to cut. Is it Australians falling in love with people from overseas? Are they going to cut the partner visas? Is it working holiday makers, who actually do the agricultural work in regional Australia? Is it international students, who keep the hospitality sector going? They're never prepared to outline which regions are no longer going to have GPs or healthcare workers or which aged-care centres are going to close. That's the debate they want to have out there, but the debate which they want to have in here is, 'Bring more migrants in, pay them less, drag down wages and give employers greater flexibility.' That's exactly what the member for Nicholls was arguing—exactly. It's unbelievable. The hypocrisy! I thought that this bill would be routine. I did. Aware of the history, the briefing is clear, the case is clear, a lot of fine words about combating migrant worker exploitation—I genuinely thought it would be routine. But then we find out, with 58 seconds to go for the previous speaker, that the opposition is going to oppose this bill. He talked about unions. It was cute. He said that unions have a place in Australia—in history—and that unions did fine work, historically. But, when push comes to shove, every time, the thing they always get most angry about—it's the age-old debate of workers versus employers, isn't it? The Labor Party believes in bringing capital and labour together, but what really triggers those opposite is the idea that workers should actually get paid properly, get their fair share and be looked after. The great Australian promise, so we say, is a fair go. The great Australian promise of Australian multiculturalism is a fair go—that everyone gets a fair crack at life here and gets treated fairly under the law, no matter their ethnicity, their circumstances, how long they've been here, their visa class and so on. We're all equal under the law. Mostly, we live up to that promise. Mostly, we do well. But, at times, for too many Australians, including many in my electorate—I spoke at the African Music and Cultural Festival in the middle of Melbourne. Forty per cent of Australia's African-born population, to illustrate the point, live in Victoria. For too many people in that community, it's structural racism that means they don't get a fair go. You see it in employment data. Mostly, we live up to our promise, but one of the most shameful, disgusting examples of where we fail as a nation and undermine our own values is the exploitation of migrant workers. It's not good enough that every now and again we see the media splashes—and people go 'Oh, that's quite bad'—of people living in squalor, being underpaid, with sexual and financial exploitation, human trafficking and slavery They're strong words, but that's actually what's going on in our country with vulnerable migrant workers. Those opposite want to argue for lower wages, argue for employers to be able to bring in more and more workers on low wages and argue against the role of unions in exposing exploitation. I say this very genuinely: I was born in Australia. As far as I can tell, we go back four generations. Hopefully, they were convicts and had a good time—I don't know. But, for those of us born in Australia, it's really hard to understand, viscerally, the vulnerability that a temporary visa status has over someone, the extreme power that an employer can have over a temporary worker, the threat: 'I will have your visa cancelled. I will report you. I will cancel your sponsorship unless you do what I say unless you work extra hours, unless you pay me kickbacks, unless you put up with these foul living conditions, unless you give me sexual services,' or worse. That threat, that insecurity, in itself, creates an enormous power dynamic that those of us who take our citizenship for granted just don't truly understand. It's not a criticism. It's an explanation of the lived experience of a lot of people in our country—people who do critical work, people who work in food service, people who work in hospitality, work in agriculture, work in aged care and so on. I think everyone would agree—and I hear those opposite and I believe them—that the exploitation of migrant workers is wrong morally but people accept that. It's not who we are as a country. We've done very well as a country over centuries now from a model of permanent migration, where those people who come and make a contribution and meet our labour market standards over time can seek permanent migration and build a life here and contribute with security. We've done well from that. We don't have mass migration. Some of them like to bang on on Sky News. We have a highly controlled, orderly migration program. We're not experiencing what we're seeing in Europe. We're not experiencing the long-rolling issues on the southern US border that dominate the media and infect our politics. We have a highly controlled, tightly managed migration program. It can go up, it can go down, but governments of the day are in control of that program. The exploitation of migrant workers—this creation of a permanently temporary underclasses hidden from the view of society—does us no credit as a people. It also harms Australian workers. This is the point. When we fail to act on the exploitation of migrant workers, it puts downwards pressure on the wages of Australian workers. It hurts everyone, not just morally, not in the conception of who we are as a people, but economically. I gave the example before and it remains current. If the minimum wage that's paid to migrant workers isn't sufficient, then it drags down the wages of Australian workers. This has been proved over and over again. It's also proved in aggregate with one of the worst, stupidest policy decisions the former government made to uncap the—
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Go over some of those excellent points you made.
Under standing order 66A, I was wondering if I could make a brief intervention and ask the member for Bennelong to repeat the list of local venues, so we've got them clearly fixed in our head.
Just. Exactly! Just—I'll take the interjection. It's a cost-of-living measure that the opposition might just support, because, having listened over the last few days of the last sitting...
Just. Exactly! Just—I'll take the interjection. It's a cost-of-living measure that the opposition might just support, because, having listened over the last few days of the last sitting week to a whole bunch of those speeches—we'll call them speeches—about this bill to freeze the excise on draught beer and excise-equivalent customs duties, you wouldn't actually be clear whether they're going to vote for the bill, because the speeches are couched in negativity and division. There's no joy; it's all division. Anyway, my deeply considered and thoroughly original speech will start with a quote. I want to quote the member for Paterson: We all know Australians have endless names for beer—a frothy, a cold one, a schooner, a pint, a middy, a jug, a stubby, a tinny, a longneck, a pony, a coldie, a bevvy or a brew. Whatever you call it—and it does vary—it was one of those things that, when I first started travelling interstate as a young adult, was deeply confusing. When I'd go to the pub in New South Wales, I'd order one thing and get another. Then I'd go back to my home state of Victoria and order the same thing I'd learned about and I'd get a different thing. But wherever you are in Australia and whatever you call it, this bill is good news for beer drinkers, and it's good news for the hospitality venues, the brewers and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who work in the industries—be they supply chains, farming, agriculture, transport industries and so on—that support these venues. There will be a two-year pause on the indexation of draught beer excise and excise-equivalent customs duties. The government is standing up for pubs, clubs, brewers and hospitality workers through pausing this beer excise. It's a practical, targeted and responsible cost-of-living measure. It supports small businesses. It protects jobs. It keeps the price of a pint stable for everyday Australians, and that's important. We inherited record inflation. Inflation has more than halved since its peak when we came to government, but this is one of a whole series of measures that the government has been taking to take the pressure off everyday Australians whilst inflation comes down. There are still a lot of people doing it tough, but we have made significant progress. This decision recognises that local pubs, clubs and breweries are not just businesses. As we heard from the former speaker, it's critically important that the pub, as the centre of community life, often, in regional areas and small towns, is able to survive and thrive, even for those who don't necessarily drink alcohol. And those who don't drink beer can have a zero beer—they're everywhere now. So often it's the local hospitality venues and the pubs where the community gathers. They might have their meetings there. I know a lot of our ALP branches meet in the rooms out the back of the pub, after gathering for a meal beforehand. It's really important that these community institutions and commercial hospitality venues—they have both personalities—are able to survive and thrive. The measure applies to containers between eight and 48 litres, commonly used in these pubs and clubs, and also containers over 48 litres. That sounds like a lot of beer, and it is a lot of beer, but, in the large hospitality venues, that's the size of the beer. That's right. The policy remains tightly targeted to hospitality operators rather than retailers, so it doesn't apply to off-the-shelf purchases in bottle shops and so on, because it is both a cost-of-living measure and a measure to support small business and to support those hospitality venues. It's a measured, temporary pause that will help keep operating costs stable. If you're a small-business person and you're looking at your balance sheet and your cost inputs, any opportunity and any line that you can see where you can budget with certainty and go, 'Well, that one's not going to go up for the next few years. I can plan with certainty and give myself a little bit of breathing space and take a little bit of pressure off,' is a good thing. It keeps operating costs stable for small venues whilst still maintaining the integrity of the broader alcohol excise framework. The Assistant Treasurer, in his second reading speech in introducing this bill, wins the award for best dad joke—or worst dad joke, depending on your perspective so far—where he said he sees it as 'a key part of his role to support liquid markets'. Well, here we are. He's one of the cleverest people in this parliament. He's got a PhD in economics, and that's probably very, very funny, in the economic world, indeed. There are around 10,000 hospitality venues across Australia which will directly benefit, including pubs, bars, taverns and clubs. I recall fondly my visit to Newcastle where you and I sat on a little stage out the back of a lovely pub in your beautiful electorate and ran a trivia night. I think people bought us beers in jugs, which we drank moderately and sensibly, of course. Around 75 per cent of those venues are small, family run businesses employing local people and supporting community events, sporting clubs and local charities. As I said, they're not just employers in their own right, not just hubs of community life and not just small businesses making a profit and a livelihood for those who run them; but also, so often, it's that venue that sponsors the local footy team and that will help out in times of need and support the broader community. This is an anti-inflationary measure, and, Deputy Speaker Freelander, you would have had this in your own community. As we helped Australians through the cost-of-living pressures and the global inflationary crisis over the last few years and worked to get inflation down whilst actually helping people through it, there was a recurrent theme—whatever measure the government put in place was simultaneously opposed by those opposite but not enough. They did this whatever it was, whether it was the cheaper medicines policy or the power bill rebates, which they consistently voted against but also said were not enough The cheaper medicines policy—I think the maximum cost of a PBS script will soon fall to $25. The last time that the cost of a PBS script was $25 was back in 2004. If we hadn't have acted, the cost of a PBS script today would be over $50 for an average family. The energy rebates; the cheaper medicines policy; free TAFE; extending the GP bulk-billing incentive to all Australians, which kicked in on 1 November; as well as the tax cuts—it all adds up. Those opposite have criticised those policies for never being enough and for not going far enough, yet they went to the last election—this is pretty astounding, actually, for the party that claims to be the party of lower taxes—promising to raise taxes. They opposed Labor's tax cuts. I am pleased—as I said earlier, I think they're going to support this bill, so we have found a cost-of-living measure which the opposition are going to support. But it does give breathing space to a hospitality sector that faced successive economic challenges. In my home state of Victoria, pandemic lockdowns as well as the supply chain disruptions coming out of the pandemic as borders reopened, a global phenomenon; rising input costs; and so on—as I said, even for non-beer-drinkers, this is good; it helps the community and businesses that sponsor footy and so on. It also supports Australian brewers, particularly those small and independent producers who supply the draught beer to the local venues. Many of these brewers rely heavily on their keg sales to maintain cash flow and jobs, so pausing indexation will be of great benefit to help to those brewers plan their production and manage their costs—the same logic as I referred to before in relation to a hospitality venue. If you can see that one of your cost line items is not going to go up, you can plan and operate with certainty. Pensioners and those with chronic health conditions can also plan ahead; they can get 60-day scripts and know that the maximum cost of a PBS script for a pensioner in this country—because of the Labor government's budget—is now frozen until 2029 at $7.70. It's the same logic. People can plan around those medicine costs not going up. Brewers can plan around the excise charges on draught beer not going up. The benefits of this policy, as I touched on earlier, reach well beyond pubs, hospitality venues and brewers. They flow on to the transport operators, equipment suppliers, farmers and thousands of small businesses linked to the hospitality supply chain. The bill also forms part of the government's broader package of small-business support, which included—they're all sitting down, so I'm going to say it—extended instant asset write-offs. These ones are well trained! In question time, or when there are a few more of them, if you say 'instant asset write-off', they kind of lose their minds. They say, 'That was us!' They forget the history of the instant asset write-off. It was the Gillard government that introduced it, and then the Abbott government got elected and wiped it out. Then, under pressure, out of embarrassment and shame, they brought it back. Now we've extended it as a Labor government. It was a Labor initiative originally, and they don't like to be reminded of that. The pause ensures that small brewers and publicans can continue competing fairly against large multinational producers, which is important to protect diversity and competition in Australia's beer and hospitality industries. This measure is fiscally responsible. It is a pause. It's not some fundamental undoing or undermining of the alcohol excise regime. It's carefully calibrated to be time-limited to help small businesses through this particularly challenging period. The decision shows, as we've heard from many government speakers, that the government is listening and in touch with community life. It understands and appreciates the pressures that small businesses face, and it acts. It doesn't just talk about it; it actually acts to support them. It will help keep local venues open, keep people in work and keep communities connected. Those are values that sit at the heart of the Labor tradition. I'll finish where I started: around the cost of living. This is, some would say, a modest measure. It's an important measure for the reasons we've outlined in speeches today. It sits alongside practical and ongoing help that the government is continuing to deliver on the cost of living. When you go doorknocking, the cost of living is still the number-one issue. Even though inflation has more than halved, even though we've had three interest rate cuts already this year, even though real wages are growing—we had that data confirmed last week: two years of real wages growth. It's such a contrast with the previous government, where suppressing wages—wages going backwards—was, to quote the former finance minister, a deliberate design feature of their economic management. They actually changed the law before the 2022 to election to cover up the power price rises that were coming down the pipe from the former energy minister, Angus Taylor. But there's more to be done. I am proud that the national minimum wage and award wages have increased by 3½ per cent. The cost-of-living equation, of course, has two sides: it's money into your bank and money out. Real wages growing, which is a deliberate design feature of our economic management, is helping Australians. Increasing the super guarantee to 12 per cent and increasing the paid parental leave scheme to 24 weeks is making it fairer for families, including fathers. Another $150 in energy bill relief before the end of the year, $10,000 in incentive payments for housing apprentices, and cheaper home batteries are measures that those opposite oppose. I think we heard today that we're up to 136,000 cheaper home batteries, as Australians continue to be world leaders in the uptake of rooftop solar at home and battery storage. I had the Prime Minister down to my electorate a few weeks ago, in Narre Warren, and we visited a wonderful young family with two cute kids and a dog. They had just installed—a few months ago, in the first possible week, actually—one of the Cheaper Home Batteries. They showed us their electricity bills. They'd basically paid nothing except the supply cost towards electricity, saving hundreds of dollars. They also had a fully electric vehicle sitting alongside a hybrid vehicle. They hadn't even had to put petrol in the hybrid vehicle for three months and they had managed to run both cars off the solar with the cheaper home battery, so Australians are getting cost savings from that program. I commend the bill to the House. I thank the Assistant Treasurer for introducing it and I thank all of the speakers. I do hope, as I said, despite all of the noise and division and negativity, that we have found a cost-of-living measure that the opposition will bring themselves to support.
Well, I enjoyed what I heard of your contribution, particularly as you put it in the context of the government's cost-of-living measures, of which this is one—not perhaps the major one, not...
Well, I enjoyed what I heard of your contribution, particularly as you put it in the context of the government's cost-of-living measures, of which this is one—not perhaps the major one, not the only one, but certainly one. But I find it telling, having sat through a few of the speeches from our colleagues opposite, that every time you talk about a cost-of-living measure they arc up. But we may have found a unicorn in this bill. We may actually have found a cost-of-living measure that the opposition will support.