Basem Abdo (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the dignity of work is a foundational value for the Government;

(b) the Government is embarking on the biggest reforms to employment services in 30 years to overhaul the one-size-fits-all approach and help more Australians into jobs;

(c) all Australians that access these services should receive meaningful support to help them move towards suitable work; and

(d) reforming Australia's employment services system is critical to ensuring more Australians find and keep work; and

(2) acknowledges the Government's advocacy for an economically sustainable real wage increase for minimum wage and award-reliant workers.

This motion is about dignity of work, a foundational value for us on this side of the House. Employment is an economic issue and one of social justice. When people are locked out of work for extended periods, opportunity and re-entry become more difficult. They are more likely to experience financial hardship, social isolation and poorer long-term outcomes while their children are more likely to grow up in households facing economic insecurity.

The consequences can become intergenerational. Secure employment remains one of the strongest drivers of social mobility and intergenerational fairness. One of the foundational principles of aspiration is a job, and governments have a responsibility to ensure people have access to effective support to find and keep one. And rather than what seems to have been written about me being born to refugees, I'm actually the son of a skilled migrant who came to this country and interacted with an employment service system whose failings I've seen firsthand.

The Commonwealth spends around $2 billion each year helping Australians find and maintain work, a substantial investment, but it's clear that the current system is not delivering the outcomes Australians deserve. Our employment services model was largely designed three decades ago. Back then, the labour market looked fundamentally different. The way people find work, the way employers hire and the skills they seek have all changed dramatically. Technological advances have fundamentally reshaped the pathways into employment and the operation of the modern labour market, yet much of our employment services framework remains built around assumptions that are nearly three decades old.

Around one in six people who exit Workforce Australia return within a year, while around one in five remain in employment services for more than five years. Too often the system has become focused on administration, compliance and box-checking exercises rather than sustainable employment outcomes. That is why our government is embarking on the biggest reforms to employment services in 30 years, and at the centre of the reforms will be three new service streams. The first is to support people who are job ready and capable of engaging digitally with support to reconnect with work quickly. The second is to provide more tailored support, including stronger pathways into industries experiencing workforce demand. The third is to provide intensive support for people facing the greatest barriers to employment. This means replacing the one-size-fits-all model with a system that responds to people's actual needs. Treating those groups the same does not produce better outcomes.

We also have to recognise that labour markets are not the same across Australia. A modern system must be capable of supporting jobseekers in their local labour market while maintaining a nationally consistent framework. We need reforms that do not bypass local realities and local communities. And in a rapidly changing labour market, helping people help into work is not simply about the search; it's about helping them acquire the skills, the qualifications and the experience needed to access employment opportunities. That is why these reforms focus on pathways, not just placements. For too long, mutual obligations have been compliance driven, disconnected from real jobs, from people and from sustainable employment outcomes. The purpose of the system should be simple: helping people move closer towards attaining meaningful employment. Under these reforms, obligations will be linked more directly to a person's employment goals and focused on developing skills, improving employability and addressing barriers to work.

The dignity of work does not end at getting a job. It extends to ensuring that work is fairly rewarded. That is why our government is championing an economically sustainable real wage increase for minimum wage and award reliant workers. It was great to welcome Assistant Minister Gorman for a forum in my community to discuss these employment services reforms. The discussions with local providers and community organisations highlighted many of the challenges these reforms seek to address. Our focus must be about building a more dignified, effective and modern employment services system—one that recognises the dignity of work, recognises the value of work, recognises the realities of today's labour market, and gives every Australian the best possible opportunity to find a job and keep it. I commend the motion to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Aged Care and Seniors) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Leon Rebello (McPherson, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The contribution of the member opposite, the member for Calwell, continuously referred to this concept of the dignity of work, and the motion itself talks about the dignity of work being a foundational value for the government. These are words, and they sound good, but Australians are sick of just words. They're looking for action and they're looking for a government that is prepared to deliver on the words, because what I'm seeing across my community on the southern Gold Coast is that Australians aren't doing well. They're struggling to get into jobs. They're struggling to maintain work that provides them with an increase in their real wages.

That's because we've got a government that's not focused on the long-term economic picture, or the larger economic picture, which is: How do we support productivity in this country? How do we grow the economy? How do we generate that wealth and that growth? That's ultimately what is going to provide for the long-term opportunities Australians need. We're seeing a government that has presided over the creation of jobs, whereby four out of five new jobs created are reliant on the public purse. That is not something that is sustainable, it's not something that this government should be proud of, and it's not something that fosters that notion of the dignity of work.

The motion also goes to the government's advocacy for an economically sustainable real wage increase. Let's call it for what it is: it's an artificial increase, because there is no systemic change that the government is doing, which is to make life easier for employees. At the same time, they're also making it difficult for employers, and we're seeing the consequences of that on small business owners.

It's all well and good for the government to turn around and say, 'We're supportive of this recent increase to the minimum wage by the Fair Work Commission.' But they're not talking about the other side of that story, which is the fact that the wage increase is being eaten away by this government's own actions, being eaten away by the inflation that this government has presided over. We're seeing inflation at 4.2 per cent, which is well above the target inflation rate, and we're seeing that across the economy in terms of how much Australians are paying for groceries, for electricity bills and for housing. And we're seeing an economy where inflation is now outpacing economic growth.

A minimum wage increase, the likes of which we've seen, is actually not a net increase for Australians, and that is what people are feeling. That's what people are feeling on the ground. These words about the dignity of work and how the government supports that—again, it's Canberra talk. The people have sent us here to this place to come up with policies that are actually going to make their lives better, not just talk about what we'd like in an ideal world.

The reality of this motion is it doesn't deliver anything sustainable for Australian employees or for Australian small-business owners. Even the Fair Work Commission acknowledged that many employees were still worse off in real terms because of inflation outpacing economic growth, or outpacing wage growth. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry policy chief, David Alexander, was recently asked in Canberra about the changes to the minimum wage. He said 'small businesses would bear the brunt of the wage rise.' The consequence of that is not just for small-business owners; it's also for consumers more broadly, because that is being passed on, in many instances, to customers through higher prices. What he actually said is that this is 'the Fair Work Commission embedding that increase in the minimum wage for the year… and we'll therefore put further pressure on inflation'.

So I say to the member for Calwell, who moved this motion, that it's all well and good to come into this place and talk about the words that we think our constituents would like us to speak, but what people do want us to do—the people in the real world out there—is deliver meaningful action on managing this economy. The way that we're going to actually make Australians' lives better is by having a government that's going to take responsibility for its actions, rein in its useless and reckless government expenditure, put downward pressure on inflation and have the guts to make those tough economic decisions that this country is desperate for.

Jess Teesdale (Bass, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Work is about more than a pay packet. It provides economic security, and it also builds confidence, connection and belonging. That is something we understand deeply in Bass. Across northern Tasmania, from Launceston to George Town, Scottsdale and Beaconsfield, work and jobs underpin our communities and sustain our local economy. But employment in regional Australia is not always straightforward.

In Bass I regularly speak to local employers across agriculture, manufacturing, health care and tourism who are crying out for workers. At the same time, there are people in my community who want to work but face real barriers to getting and keeping a job. Barriers such as limited transport, skills gaps, caring responsibilities, disability, health challenges or long periods out of the workforce can make it much harder for people in regional communities to find secure employment.

Across Australia around 1.7 million people are not working but would like to be. This is a huge pool of untapped potential for us, and that is where employment services need to be making a positive impact. At their best, they should do one thing really well: help get people into suitable and meaningful jobs. But that requires more than matching a person to the next vacancy. It requires tailored support that understands their circumstances and goals as well as a really good understanding of the local labour market.

For too long, our system has been built on a one-size-fits-all approach. In a diverse regional electorate like Bass, that doesn't work. You can't do it. The needs of a young person entering the workforce in Launceston for the first time are very different to someone retraining after years in a waning industry or someone living in a more remote part of the electorate without access to reliable transport. Yet, too often over the past few decades, they have been treated as the same. The result was continuously poor job matches, businesses struggling to retain staff and people cycling back through the system instead of moving forward.

That's why our Albanese Labor government is delivering the most significant reform to employment services in 30 years. At the heart of these reforms is a simple principle: the right support for the right person at the right time. We are ending the one-size-fits-all approach and introducing three service streams so that support is matched to how close someone is to that labour market. For people who are job ready, it means faster and more direct pathways into employment. For people facing greater barriers, it means more intensive and personalised support to build confidence, skills and capacity.

We're improving mutual obligations so that they are actually meaningful and support people into work rather than requiring compliance for its own sake. We're strengthening the assessment so barriers are identified early and people are connected with the right supports from day one. We're introducing the employment goal plans, giving people real ownership over their pathway into work, aligned with local opportunities, including in Bass. It provides realistic support and realistic goals for people moving forward.

These reforms are backed by more than $312 million in the budget. I listened to the previous speaker, who didn't mention employment services to try and help people into work. They referred to Labor as not understanding what the employment services market requires. But we're providing the money. We're backing it with $312 million in the budget. These once-in-a-generation changes recognise the realities of regional communities like mine.

Alongside these reforms, we continue to support fair wages. It really matters in Bass, where workers are employed in retail, aged care, hospitality and other award-reliant industries. So those increases in wages really do mean a lot to us. They mean that our community can continue to do the work that they love and support their families at the same time.

Since we came to government, the national minimum wage has increased by more than $12,000 a year. I've heard the challenges to that, but the people I've talked to are pleased. They are happy. They needed this. That is what we have worked towards. It's a meaningful difference for my families because, if people work hard, they deserve fair pay. These reforms are about building a system that works for communities like mine in Bass, a system that recognises the barriers that people face, supports them into meaningful work and delivers on that basic right: the dignity of work.

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters) | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely agree that the dignity of work is fundamental to what it means to be a proud Australian, and I can tell you why. A couple of years ago, I started a bar with a friend of mine. Neither of us had ever pulled a pint, waited a table or poured a coffee for a customer, but we took the plunge into small business nonetheless. One of our regulars at the bar happened to be the general manager of an employment services provider in the south-west of WA. That regular patron provided us a challenge. She said: 'I've got a customer who has never yet been gainfully employed. He's someone with autism and severe anxiety. Could you possibly find him a role in your hospitality venue?' I talked to my business partner because someone that's suffering from autism and severe anxiety isn't necessarily the greatest fit for a busy, thriving, noisy and bright venue. But we thought the easy thing would be to say that, no, we couldn't find him a spot. So we sat down with our head chef and said, 'Chef, we've got to find a way to give this guy a go.' We did. He started with rolling pizza bases in the kitchen long before opening, when there was no-one else in the venue. Seven years later, we sold that business and that employee was still there. He was doing day shifts. He was doing night shifts. He was a valued part of the team. He was fundamentally a different person to the chap that walked in the door those many years ago. So, when we talk about the best form of welfare being a job, I can say from my personal experience that not only have I seen it with my own eyes but I'm very proud I've been part of giving someone that opportunity. It is that sense of purpose that employment gives someone that government programs alone cannot replace. That individual got a 13-week wage subsidy and, after that, had to carry his own weight, and I'm so proud of the fact that he did.

Australians don't judge success in these sorts of endeavours based on announcements, intentions or media releases. They judge success based on whether more Australians are getting into jobs and staying in them over the long term. The government's described these proposed changes as the biggest reform to employment services in 30 years. But scale alone doesn't guarantee effectiveness or success in converting people off welfare and into jobs for the long term. That is the only outcome that matters.

Presently, some 670,000 Australians are still unemployed, and underemployment is a massive issue in the Australian economy which means that many Australians who do have work are still not getting enough hours to support themselves and their families properly. There are signs that the labour market is softening, with Labor's rampant inflation and their addiction to spending undermining the private sector's prosperity and its capacity to employ in this country. Our position is that reform should always be judged on whether it's putting people into sustained work, not simply on how it appears in glossy media releases and brochures.

When there are more than one million Australians receiving JobSeeker and similar income support payments and when that number has increased by over 70,000 in a single year—that's a 7½ per cent rise in just 12 months—those numbers suggest that this system is not consistently moving people from welfare into employment at all. When it comes to matching those potential employees and their future employers, you would expect that those businesses should be privately owned and prosperous, not government backed—because jobs that require taxpayer funding aren't contributing to the size of the pie in this country.

There are more than 200,000 job advertisements across the country today indicating that demand is strong. Despite this, employers are consistently reporting in my part of the world that finding suitable employees is incredibly tough. There is a disconnect between jobseekers and the available jobs that the current system is not resolving adequately. This motion asks the House to support an intention rather than assess performance, and it's for that reason the coalition won't support it.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of this motion and the biggest reform of employment services since last century, and I thank my friend the member for Calwell for bringing it before the House. It goes to some really fundamental things. One is the dignity of work, and the other is that, as a government, we have a responsibility to ensure that those who are out of work have the appropriate supports to find a job.

Work is more than a pay packet and the economic security and certainty it provides. Those are very important; however, work can also build confidence, create a sense of purpose and connect people to their communities. That's why Labor governments have always placed such importance on employment: it's both an economic priority and a social one. Under the Albanese Labor government, we've seen the lowest average unemployment of any government in 50 years. More than 1.2 million jobs have been created across the country, and those numbers matter. Behind each of them is a real person and their family. It's someone gaining opportunity and stability.

But low unemployment does not mean everyone has an equal chance in finding work. Many Australians still face barriers that make participation difficult. It might be because they have caring responsibilities, health challenges, limited skills or simply a lack of confidence after time away from the workforce. Australian governments have always recognised their role in supporting unemployed people into the workforce. That's where the employment services system plays a critical role. In my era it was the Commonwealth Employment Service, the CES—essentially a jobs noticeboard. Employment services were fully privatised in the late 1990s, and now the Commonwealth spends around $2 billion each year on this system.

But the one-size-fits-all system currently operating is ill-equipped to respond to the diverse needs of the more than one million Australians who access it each year. People who are job ready have been treated the same way as those who are facing complex and long-term barriers. We've seen too many people cycle through the system without lasting results. We've seen job placements that don't endure because they're not the right fit, and we've seen people disengage because requirements have not always been meaningful or tailored to their situation. That's not good enough for participants, it's not good enough for employers and it's not good enough for the economy.

That's why these reforms are so important. This is the most significant change to employment services in 30 years. At the heart of these reforms is the end of the one-size-fits-all model. In its place, we're creating three distinct service streams. The first is a digital service for those who are ready to work and comfortable online. The second is a targeted provider service for those who need more personalised support and guidance to find work. The third is an intensive service for people who are further from the labour market and require more time and assistance to build their capacity.

This approach recognises a very simple truth: different people need different kinds of help. By matching support to need, we can focus effort where it will have the greatest impact, and that's only possible if there is better assessment of a person's circumstances and barriers right from the start so they're directed to the right support from day one. Participants will have greater ownership of their journey, with the new employment goal plan replacing the current system with a clear pathway tailored to the individual and grounded in the realities of the local labour market. Mutual obligations will be about supporting people into work, not simply compliance for its own sake. They should be practical, relevant and connected to a person's employment goals with activities that build skills, confidence and readiness for work.

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Amanda Rishworth, came to Macquarie to hold the first Western Sydney forum to discuss the changes with me and around 80 employment providers, community groups who provide support to unemployed people and local business representatives, and I thank them all for their attendance and the discussion. These changes won't be implemented without deep discussion with the sector, with community organisations and with people who themselves have experience as unemployed persons. Alongside this and our fair wages, we're making these systems better for workers.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

Employment services are the Commonwealth's largest single procurement outside of Defence. In 2024, it was estimated that we would spend around $9.5 billion over the four years from that time. In the previous parliament, I had the great privilege of being part of a select committee that examined, in great detail, employment service delivery in Australia, really with an aim on what we could do better. It was a first-principles approach. The report, Rebuilding employment services, made 75 recommendations. It was informed by over 300 submissions, more than 60 hours of witness testimony, and over 50 meetings and site visits. That was with jobseekers, employers, employment service providers, academics, social enterprises, local and state government, social welfare groups, training providers and other human services. We did that in every state and territory, as well as having direct engagement with the OECD, experts and over 10 other nations. It was comprehensive.

I'd really like to acknowledge the work of the member for Bruce and the former member for Monash as part of that committee work. It was very important work that we did, and one of those times when we really saw members of parliament come together.

In Australia, we have approximately one million Australians of working age who are on payments of either JobSeeker or youth allowance. Of those, 557,000 are long-term unemployed—that is, they've been unemployed for more than 12 months. Approximately 200,000 people have been employed for five years or longer. To me, that just shows that the system we currently have is really failing. Over 400,000 unemployed people are aged between 45 and 66. This is a vast number of Australians. To complicate matters, Roy Morgan calculated that, in June 2025, Australia's real unemployment rate was more than 1.6 million people because, once you're working over an hour a week, you're no longer technically unemployed. Clearly, this system isn't working. What should we be doing? What the report said to us was that we need to work intensively with people and we need to be able to make people job ready—help them to get job ready—to fill those jobs where we're currently having a very high rate of immigration, to fill jobs that I'm regularly told Australians don't want to do. I find that extraordinary. I can't believe that that's true because, whether it's in aged care or child care or the trucking industry or hospitality, I am quite confident that people who are unemployed would very much like to get into those industries, except there are challenges and barriers to do so. Largely, that's because a lot of employment providers will only provide a one-day course at best for someone who's on their books.

We really need to see investment in and spending of money on people to work intensively with them to address those barriers and to get the qualifications. For instance, to be in aged care, you really need to have a certificate III to get in, unless you are one of the very lucky people that can get into a traineeship. A certificate III costs time and money, so we need to be able to support people to do that. By 2050, we're going to need an extra 400,000 people to work in aged care, and I don't think that we're doing very well at working with people who are currently unemployed who would be brilliant in that sector, who have spent a lifetime caring for their children and maybe their parents to then work in that area.

Mutual obligations should be connected to how people can find employment in an area. For instance, if you are looking to get into hospitality or you're working in hospitality, your mutual obligation should be, perhaps, working with a social enterprise, a cafe, so that you can have something on your resume. We need to do much better when we've got one million Australians who are unemployed, particularly with the advent of AI.

Just one area where I think we could do much better is in the trucking sector. We know that there are 28,000 unfilled positions, but the problem with a lot of people who are unemployed is that they can't afford to get the licence. They'd love to work in the trucking sector, and providers, unless they've got a written letter saying, 'We're going to offer you a job,' will not help people and invest in getting that licence. Licences cost anywhere between $700 and $4,000, depending on the particular licence. That's just one area in which we could intensively invest in Australians who are unemployed for the betterment of all of us.

Anne Urquhart (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the 2022 federal election, Labor made a clear commitment. We would stand up for Australia's lowest paid workers. We said we would go to the Fair Work Commission and argue for an immediate wage increase because people who work hard should not be left behind. For nearly a decade under the former Liberal and National government, low wages were not an accident. They were a deliberate design feature of economic policy. Working Australians were told to wait, accept less and carry rising costs without receiving a fair share of the prosperity they helped create.

Labor has a different view. Work should provide security, dignity and opportunity. A strong economy is measured not only by profit but by whether working people can pay the rent, fill the fridge, put petrol in the car and buy school shoes. That's why this Labor government has advocated for wage increases in every wage review since coming to office. This year, the government supported sustainable real wage increases for the lowest paid workers. The Fair Work Commission has now increased the national minimum wage by six per cent and minimum award wages by 4.75 per cent. These adjustments take effect from the first full pay period on or after 1 July this year. Around 2.7 million award-reliant workers will receive a pay rise. For them, this is practical relief—the difference between falling behind and keeping up.

Many low-paid workers are young, women or casual workers. Many work in jobs that keep Australia going—retail, hospitality, cleaning, aged care, disability support and early childhood education. They deserve more than thanks. They deserve fair pay. This also matters because award-reliant workers are disproportionately women, and their work has too often been undervalued and underpaid. Labor has backed wage rises in aged care, is supporting historic pay increases in early childhood education and care, and continues to support fair outcomes in sectors that have contributed to the gender pay gap.

Under Labor, Australia's national gender pay gap has fallen to an historic low of 11.5 per cent, down from 14.1 per cent in May 2022. That progress happened because Labor acted, backing minimum wage increases, banning pay secrecy clauses, modernising bargaining, improving transparency and lifting wages in feminised industries. That's what Labor governments do. We see fair wages as the foundation of a decent society. We do not simply praise essential workers. We fight to pay them properly.

Our commitment to fair work and fair pay is not new. It is part of Labor's legacy of nation building. After the Second World War, the Curtin Labor government helped lay the foundations for full employment through the Commonwealth Employment Service, launched in 1946. Its purpose was simple but powerful: to connect people with work, respond to labour shortages and support Australians through changing economic conditions. The CES recognised that employment policy is not just about statistics but about people, families and communities.

That principle still matters today. Under this government, Australia has recorded the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in more than 50 years, and more than 1.2 million jobs have been created. That is a record of which we can be proud. But low unemployment does not mean that every Australian can easily access work. Too many people are missing out because the employment services system that replaced the CES in 1998 is no longer working for everyone who needs support to find and keep work. The Commonwealth spends around $2 billion each year on employment services, supporting more than one million Australians. But the current system is ill equipped for diverse needs and too often relies on a one-size-fits-all model.

That's why we're rebuilding that system around people, not punishment, and around capability, not compliance for its own sake. We have announced fundamental reforms—the biggest change to employment services in 30 years. It means the right support at the right time for those people who need it, for those more than one million people out there. Labor's task is twofold: to make sure that work pays and to make sure more Australians can share in the dignity and security that work provides. The dignity of work is not just a slogan for Labor governments. It is a principle. It is a promise. And it's a promise that we are delivering. The delivery of that promise is around modernising and changing the employment services that are out there today to become more receptive to those who are looking for work.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to rise to speak on the motion put forward by my good colleague the member for Calwell. I have reflected on a number of the contributions made about this issue on both sides of this chamber. I take the contribution to this discussion by the member for Mayo around a number of pieces of work that have gone before this parliament in progressing what should be a goal of everyone in this House: to encourage employment and to encourage the dignity of work in this nation. I want to commend the former member for Monash, my predecessor, who I know had a genuine and abiding interest in this area. I know that in his last couple of years in this place he dedicated himself to the committee work that the member for Mayo referenced.

The coalition agrees that the dignity of work is fundamental and that work provides Australians with independence, financial security and a sense of purpose. In the last couple of weeks, in a number of mobile offices across my electorate of Monash, that's something I've reflected on in the conversations that I've had with families and with working people. They are most concerned, at the moment, with their sense of employment security, particularly under this government, particularly as real wages fall and particularly in regional areas like mine, where we have industries transitioning, and also for that quantum of not just large businesses in those regions but the ecosystem of small and family enterprises which sit beneath, among and alongside those large employers, who provide the lunches, do the dry cleaning and deliver the newspapers to those large companies.

This is an issue that is most important to regions like mine. While we are experiencing a flux in the economy right now and a change in employment demographics, now is not the time to be making major shifts in the way employment services are delivered in this country. We still have around 670,000 Australians unemployed, and underemployment remains close to six per cent. That is a big issue for regions like mine, where there are pockets of disadvantage and pockets of lower socioeconomic families who are really struggling right now. Underemployment is a key issue for them when you've got an economy where families really need to have two incomes. That is something that many families are most challenged by, and the consequences for that are intergenerational. It has an impact on children going to school and being able to enjoy and participate fully in sporting and other activities that their parents, at the moment, are really struggling to be able to afford.

The coalition's position is that reforms should be judged not just on whether they're delivering more people into sustained work. I think that is a key goal. And it is not just how ambitious or wide-ranging they appear to be on paper, because a well-functioning employment system requires a balance between meaningful support for job seekers but also clear expectations that people actively seek and want to accept suitable work which is available to them in their local communities. The state government in Victoria does not have a good record on this issue, and I raise the example of timber towns and timber communities in my region and regions across Australia, where, because of terrible decisions taken by the Victorian state government—I single out the minister Lily D'Ambrosio for her treatment of timber communities. You take a timber worker out of that town along with their partner, who happens to be a nurse at a hospital or a teacher at a school, and suddenly that school has lost a teacher, that hospital has lost a nurse, that town has lost another family that contributes economically but also socially to the vibrancy and sustainability of that town. I have real worries about timber towns and, more broadly, regional towns across Australia that have been treated very badly.

So, yes, I commend the intention of this motion, but the application of it and the lived experience of people in my electorate in regional communities don't always live up to the high hopes of this motion.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

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