Shayne Neumann's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 | Constituency Statements | House debates
During the recent debate on the government's reforms of the national environmental legislation, I didn't get the opportunity to speak on the bills. So I want to take the opportunity to...
During the recent debate on the government's reforms of the national environmental legislation, I didn't get the opportunity to speak on the bills. So I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Minister Murray Watt and the Prime Minister in terms of the agreement that's been reached in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and say a few words about the beneficial impact it will have for my electorate. The new streamlined assessment pathway will significantly reduce the timeframe for proponents to provide sufficient information upfront. It will provide an incentive to meet the standards upfront. It will deliver faster decisions, saving businesses time and money. New and improved bilateral agreement with the states will remove duplication for the assessment and approval of projects. The reality is that, in the Ipswich area, the current laws are holding up critical housing and road projects. Some housing developments in Ipswich have been in limbo for five years as a result of green tape and the EPBC approvals, delaying vital housing supply in the middle of a housing crisis. On top of this, the EPBC requirements and associated ecological assessments for the much needed Mount Crosby Road interchange upgrade on the Warrego Highway in my electorate—a major freight and commuter corridor—have seen the finalisation of the design pushed back by around 18 months. The laws are costing business time and money, and strangling the homes and infrastructure that we need. This was a big theme of a local Blair growth and productivity roundtable that I held in August this year, as well as of the Treasurer's national Economic Reform Roundtable. Going forward, the government's reforms will tackle the underlying causes of these delays while also delivering greater protection for nature. It's not an either-or. Indeed, what we're doing in my electorate will benefit both business and the environment. During the last election, I was proud to announce a $1.2 million commitment from Labor towards Goodness Enterprises' Koala Rehabilitation and Education Centre at the Goodness Chuwar Conservation Corridor in Tivoli, on the north side of Ipswich. This builds on our support for local environment groups and projects in Blair during the last term with the government's $76 million Saving Koalas Fund. We've invested $3 million in the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program to improve habitat for species like platypus and the Queensland lungfish and to improve the Bremer, Woogaroo and Brisbane catchments in the Ipswich region. You don't have to choose between the environment and business. It's not a zero-sum game. We need to get this done to deliver what the Australian people voted us in to do—establish a national environmental protection agency, strengthen protection for native forests and create a $300 million forestry growth fund to support jobs. These reforms are good for the environment. They're good for jobs, good for certainty and good for industry. I am very pleased to hear the announcement today by the Prime Minister and Minister Murray Watt. This will be a win for the environment, urgently needed housing in Ipswich, critical infrastructure and the national economy.
Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
This country has been built on three aspects: first, the immense contribution of First Nations people, who've been here for tens of thousands of years; second, the British colonial settlement...
This country has been built on three aspects: first, the immense contribution of First Nations people, who've been here for tens of thousands of years; second, the British colonial settlement that was established in the aftermath of Captain Phillip's arrival; and, third, the waves of migration that came to this country post World War II. We are blessed for having had those waves of migration. Those migrants have made an immense contribution to our culture, economy, sport, arts, education, law, finance and commerce and to our nursing and allied health professional workforces. Where would we be in terms of our doctors, nurses and regional and rural hospitals without migrant workers? But this government is once again fixing up the coalition's mess. The coalition made a number of decisions—consciously, while averting their eyes—in the way they carried out their policy on migration. Some of it was to do with wages and some of it was to do with migration. Migration is critical to our economy. Every business in every city of this country knows that. The business community knows that. BCA knows it. ACCI knows it. The National Farmers' Federation knows it. But those opposite seem to subconsciously or consciously not recognise it. Workplace exploitation of migrant communities can take a number of forms: underpaying workers, pressuring a person to hand over their passport or threatening to cancel a person's visa—employers really can't do that, but they threaten anyway. There can be pressure to work more hours than the visa conditions allow and pressure to engage in unwanted sexual acts, and there wouldn't be a federal MP that hasn't had stories like that given to them at a mobile office, on the phone or in their office. There can be pressure to accept poor living conditions, and I've seen up to 15 or 20 people living in appalling conditions at the hands of unscrupulous employers in suburbs in Ipswich. And there's poor housing, with a lack of access to running water or electricity. We've had to do a number of things since we came in, in terms of strengthening the laws, and the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025 is yet another one of them. It's not like the coalition government didn't know what was going on. Back in 2016, they commissioned the Migrant Workers' Taskforce supremo, or chief, Allan Fels, who has a long history of business involvement in the community, to undertake an inquiry looking at employer-employee relationships in terms of the migrant community. He found that employers engaged in deliberate and systemic underpayment of migrant workers. He made 22 recommendations to the previous coalition government in March 2019. That inquiry started in 2016. They came to power in 2013. The federal government—Kelly O'Dwyer was the responsible minister at the time—accepted all 22 recommendations. And then what did they do? Absolutely nothing—no legislation, no regulations. There was a commitment to do something, knowing there was widespread and entrenched systemic abuse and exploitation of workers, and they did absolutely nothing. Who could forget the underpayment scandals? Who could forget the 7-Eleven scandals, where as little as 47 cents an hour was paid to workers who were migrants? There was the systemic underpayment of wages, poor living conditions, poor housing in which they had to live and a lack of payment of superannuation. There should be no tolerance of undercutting workers' wages and conditions, but that's what happened. So we had to undertake some work when we came to power. We undertook a migration strategy, which we released on 11 December 2023. We outlined some reforms that were undertaken. That built on the work that was done when the former minister for home affairs, back on 2 September 2022, announced that three eminent persons would undertake an independent review of our migration system to make sure it was meeting the existing challenges that we faced. It came out with strong recommendations, and the report was presented to the government on 21 March 2023. As part of that review process, there was a discussion paper and we considered 483 submissions. The reviewers undertook eight roundtables with peak organisations, unions and senior state and territory officials. Business was involved in the review. And what did the coalition do in opposition? They were quiescent. They did nothing in government and were quiescent in opposition. So we had to undertake important changes. I have heard people opposite speak in relation to this particular bill. It is almost like they forgot every review that has been undertaken. Let's go through a couple of them. The Grattan Institute released a report on 23 May 2023, which found that exploitation of migrant workers was rife. Recent migrants were twice as likely to be underpaid, up to 16 per cent less than the national minimum wage. The Immigration Advice and Rights Centre did a report that they released in November 2024 which found that migrant workers were 40 per cent more likely to face worker exploitation than Australian workers. Let's get this straight. If people can undercut wages and they can exploit cheap labour, what happens? It weakens the bargaining of Australian workers to get decent wages and conditions. It harms those businesses, and there are many, who do the right thing. It damages our international reputation for being a place where you can come and work, and it undermines really deeply the community's confidence in our migration system. They are the consequences of allowing migration exploitation to continue in workplaces around the country, whether it be on farms, in hospitality, in hospitals, in schools—wherever it may be. Sometimes I cannot understand the coalition parties. They are supposed to be parties who believe in free enterprise and in supporting the business community. If you are harming businesses that do the right thing, why would you allow that to continue? They did nothing. They were in power from 2013 to 2022 and did nothing. They had the report from Graeme Samuel on the EPBC Act for five years and did nothing. They had the report from Alan Fels over three years and did nothing. Talk about a government of inertia and idleness and ignorance—ignorance and looking the other way on worker exploitation in migrant communities. We had to strengthen the rules. We increased the penalties. We did it through our strengthening employer compliance bill and we made sure we established new criminal offences and associated civil penalties to deter employers from using migrant visa conditions or statuses to coerce undue influence or undue pressure on people in the workplace. We established a new mechanism to prohibit employers from hiring additional people on temporary visas, and we increased the maximum criminal and civil penalties. We did a whole bunch of stuff to strengthen the situation. Those opposite were again quiet, quiescent and did nothing about it. One of the things that they did, and they did it as a deliberate design feature when they were in government, was to keep the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold, the TSMIT—the amount of money you had to pay a worker—at the same rate, $53,900, from 2013 for over nine years, effectively with inflation undercutting wages and thereby conditions in this country. That is what they did, therefore undercutting Australian wages and conditions as a 'deliberate design feature'—to use the words of Mathias Cormann, the former finance minister. That is what they did for nine years. And I have heard speakers in this chamber reference it to the glory days almost—the glory days of keeping wages low. We increased the TSMIT when we came to power, and rightly made sure that we protected wages and conditions, not just for migrant workers but for Australian workers generally. Today, yesterday, I heard those opposite lauding the fact that they kept the TSMIT low at $53,900. It is now $76,500. That is what it should be, and employers should pay those sorts of wages. We want the system to have integrity. We do not want people being paid less than they deserve. That is exactly what the coalition members are supporting. With the legislation before the chamber, those opposite would have the public believe that we will be putting some massive impost on business. As the member for Makin said, this is just a reporting mechanism and making sure we have a website that does the right thing and allows people to get information to work out, if you get a sponsored visa, who's a good employer and who's a bad employer and making sure the market does its work. It's almost like they do not believe in individual freedom for migrant workers. Where are the John Stuart Mill devotees in the small-l liberals opposite? They don't believe it. Where are the devotees to Adam Smith in those opposite? Well, Adam Smith—he's just a statue you see in Edinburgh. You don't worry about him. I don't think they ever read any of the liberal and conservative devotees of free enterprise, because what they're doing is opposing individual choice for migrant workers. That's what they're doing. They're not just undercutting wages and they're not just harming the Australian business; they're undercutting wages and conditions. Those opposite will come in here and have a vote later today, they will not support Australian workers or migrant workers, and they will not support businesses. Once again, the Liberal and National parties show that they're party of the far right, not the party that supports free enterprise, individual autonomy and the right to choose. Do they really believe in some sort of feudalism in terms of the workplace? Is that their view? I'm telling you they should all go and have a look at John Stuart Mill's works and Adam Smith's works. The Wealth of NationsI commend that to you, by the way. It'd be a good thing for you to have a look at from time to time. Put it in the caucus room of the opposition and have a flick through it from time to time. You might end up voting for legislation like this from time to time and doing the right thing. What this bill does is establish a legislative framework for a public register of approved work sponsors to be published and maintained on the Department of Home Affairs's website. Why is this necessary? To make sure we have better targeted temporary skilled work visa programs. It's important for transparency and oversight, for people to make a choice and for the public to understand who's a good employer and who's a bad employer. It might change people's behaviour. It might make a bad employer think about becoming a good employer from time to time, whether it's on a farm or in a pub, whether it's in a hospital or, can I say, in retail. So how about the Liberal and National parties for once support the business community in the way they voted in this chamber? Later on this morning, they'll have a chance. Do you support workers? Do you support business? Or are you going off to the realms of the far right—not believing in your philosophical or economic treatises that were by the people you claim you're devoted to? There are no moral moorings or economic understanding in the coalition parties if they vote against this legislation. Through their ignorance and their actions during the time they were in government, they opposed a good national economy. They opposed decency in the workplace. They opposed good wages and conditions in jobs. As the member for Makin rightly pointed out, we will always bring in migrants to the community in a regulated steady approach. But we've had to do it in terms of what we've done in this country because they didn't invest in education or TAFE. They didn't train enough people up. We had to establish Jobs and Skills Australia with the identification of the workforce shortages and needs. Today we're going to vote to make bad employers good employers and allow people choice. The party of free enterprise and liberalism, the party that believes that people should have the right to choose and have free will, today will come across, sit on that side of the chamber on that side of the chamber and vote against everything they claim they believe in.
Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm pleased to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. At the outset, the Albanese government's...
I'm pleased to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. At the outset, the Albanese government's highest priority is keeping Australians safe. To that end, the legislation will establish a new independent Commonwealth Parole Board, which will strengthen community safety by empowering law enforcement and community safety experts to make critical decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community on parole and the conditions under which they are released. Determining what circumstances a federal offender should be released into the community on parole is a critical decision. The bills will ensure these decisions are made by experts who have the qualifications, experience and knowledge to assess the risk posed to the community and whether an offender is suitable for release into the community on parole. We believe these decisions should be made by law enforcement and other community safety experts, not by politicians. Currently decisions are made by the Commonwealth Attorney-General. Parole decisions are complex. Sitting suspended from 17:55 to 17:57 The Commonwealth Parole Board will strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the federal parole system by protecting the rights of incarcerated individuals to have their applications for liberty considered in an independent, transparent, fair and accountable manner and by addressing the risks of perceived political interference in parole decisions. What we're doing here is very similar to what's happening in the states and territories, and it's important that we have separation of powers. I grew up under the Bjelke-Petersen regime, which had no respect for the separation of powers. It's critical that we have separation of powers. It's best practice, and it's happening across the states and territories. International partners who we follow and respect—such as Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand—are doing it as well. Independent parole decision-making bodies are widely accepted as an improvement in the administration of justice, having been adopted throughout Australia. All states and territories have implemented parole decision-making schemes that provide a degree of independence from the primary decision-making of the executive. The Commonwealth is currently the only jurisdiction in Australia where elected officials make primary decisions about parole. Currently, once a federal offender is sentenced, responsibility for determining parole shifts to the executive branch of the government in the federal Attorney-General and delegates within the Attorney-General's Department. And that's exactly the problem which the member for Riverina does not quite understand, in terms of separation of powers. A federal parole authority will help take the politics out of parole and address the risk of perceived political interference, ensuring apolitical, consistent and evidence based parole decisions. If we were to take reductio ad absurdum, for the member for Riverina, we would have no Administrative Review Tribunal, no Federal Circuit and Family Court, no Federal Court and no High Court of Australia. That's the argument he's putting, if you take it to the extreme, because everyone brings their own views, philosophies and beliefs into the system, but judges and people who engage in these particular roles, in terms of the Parole Board, have to make decisions based on the evidence, the facts of the case and the law. That's the case. At the same time, we're making amendments here that provide the Commonwealth Parole Board with flexibility. The background is really important. The member for Riverina should listen to this. The idea of a parole board is not new. There have been a range of calls for an independent Commonwealth parole board over the years, as well as some preparatory work to establish such a board. The former Whitlam government attorney-general Kep Enderby, who's widely respected as a very important figure not just in terms of the law but in Australian Labor history, was reported as having early discussions with state justice ministers to establish a federal parole board back in 1975. At different times, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that the Commonwealth could and should establish a federal parole board, noting intractable challenges within the federal parole system. Then, during the Gillard government, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs recommended 'the Australian government give further consideration to establishing a federal parole board' in a report on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2011. More recently, the Law Council of Australia called for an independent Commonwealth parole board, including in its detailed 2022 position paper Principles underpinning a federal parole authority. So this is not new. It's been going on for 50 years, and it's about time we did it because it's the right thing to do and it's the right thing to do in terms of separation of powers. Given this history of expert and stakeholder support and the current environment, the government believes the time is right to establish a Commonwealth parole board. There are about 1,200 federal offenders currently serving sentences across every state and territory in Australia, which is more than the prison populations of the ACT and Tasmania combined. The current legislative framework is no longer appropriate, given the significant rise in the number of Commonwealth criminal prosecutions and convictions since 1990. We don't have the Attorney-General make decisions here with respect to prosecuting people. We have the Director of Public Prosecutions, the DPP, do that because we live in a democracy that believes in the rule of law and the separation of powers. That's what the member for Riverina could not understand, and that's why what we're doing is at the back end of this process. At the front of the process, we anticipate and expect that the DPP will act in an apolitical way and act on the law and the evidence and the facts in determining whether someone gets prosecuted. We do not live in a communist dictatorship or a fascist dictatorship. We live in a democracy, a liberal democracy, where the rule of law is absolutely critical and the separation of powers is absolutely vital to respect human rights and liberties that we anticipate and expect all Australian citizens to experience. The number of parole decision at a federal level has continued to rise every year. More than 530 parole related decisions were made in 2024-25, and the number of decisions has increased by 10 per cent every year. On top of this, over time the federal offender cohort has changed, and now that includes increasing numbers of offenders that pose a direct risk to community safety, such as terrorists and child sex offenders. That's happened, by the way, at a state level, in my experience and observation, as well. So we need to act now to address this based on the evidence, based on the reports, based on the Law Council's recommendation and based on the parliamentary committee's recommendation. Looking at these bills, just briefly, I want to say what this will do. It will establish a Commonwealth parole board as a secondary statutory structure in the federal Attorney-General's portfolio. It will provide for the Commonwealth Parole Board's membership, functions, decision-making and administrative arrangements for the release and management of federal offenders and other detainees. We will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to replace the Attorney-General with the board as the decision-maker for the management and release of federal offenders in the community on parole and licence, including the conditions under which they are released. We'll also make changes to the statutory timeframes for parole decision-making. The board will bring together experts from a range of professions. If you listen to the member for Riverina, he obviously doesn't trust crime advocates, psychologists and other community safety experts. They're the kinds of people—experts in law and order, experts in law enforcement and corrective services staff—that will be on the board because they're the people we would employ to be on the board. When recommending appointments to the board, the Attorney-General would ensure that the board possesses a range and a mix of qualifications, experience and knowledge and reflects as closely as possible the composition of the Australian community at large, to ensure the integrity of the scheme. Many parts of the Australian community have different experiences of the criminal justice system, either as victims or offenders. It's important that the board's membership includes individuals with a range of skills, expertise, lived experience and knowledge of the needs of the people and groups of people significantly affected by the board's decisions. That includes experts in law enforcement, the criminal justice system and the effective reintegration of offenders—making sure that people don't re-offend. Recidivism is a big issue in our community, and we've got to make sure that people no longer commit repeat offences. The board will include people who are involved in community issues such as substance abuse or mental health issues—experts that understand these things and the impact of offences on victims. I've got a lot of faith in the Attorney-General, but I don't think she would portray herself as an expert on substance abuse or mental health issues. She was a very experienced lawyer and she's a good parliamentarian as well. So she is not an expert, and neither am I, and I spent nearly 10 years practising in criminal law as well as other areas of litigation. I don't consider myself an expert in the area. My grade 12 biology at Bundamba State Secondary College does not qualify me for understanding anything in relation to the human brain and how it operates. It does not. So we need experts in this area to strike a balance between having relevant subject expertise on the board and people who are reflective of the wider community, in tune with community expectations and standards. That's absolutely critical. Ultimately, community safety will be the board's highest priority. It's important to ensure that all decisions about parole assess risk. We're going to have a chair and a deputy chair. It's not unusual. You would think, if you listen to the member for Riverina, that we will just gather a few people off the street without any expertise and no knowledge and put them on the board, and they can go into a room and make decisions. We're going to have a chair, a deputy chair and three sessional members who will have the power to amend, make, revoke and rescind parole for offenders. It's absolutely important. The board will consider a broad range of matters. I won't go through the whole thing, but it's really important for people to understand that the board's remit does not override the states and territories. It's limited to federally convicted criminals, those who committed crimes under Commonwealth legislation, including drug importation, online child sex offenders and social security fraud among other things. Let's be clear; the board's going to make decisions in relation to terrorism offenders, and the bill won't change the statutory prohibition against parole for terrorism offenders. It's a very high threshold that must be met for a person convicted of terrorism offences to gain parole, and parole can only be granted in exceptional circumstances that justify the release. That won't change at all. The board is expected to commence operation in the second half of 2026, subject to passage of the legislation, and we've allocated money for it. The feedback from stakeholders is that they are overwhelmingly in favour of this method, including the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Law Council of Australia and National Legal Aid. The Law Council has had a longstanding position supporting the establishment of a Commonwealth parole board and welcomes the legislation. The Law Council said the Parole Board would 'protect the rights of prisoners to have their application for freedom considered in a transparent manner and without political interference'. The chair of National Legal Aid and chief executive of the Legal Services Commission South Australia has supported the change. She said: This will promote high-quality, evidence-based decision-making, and guard against the risk of politicisation … It's also been welcomed by victim support groups and legal advocacy organisations. I know how important this is. It is important reform legislation. I think it's one of those things about which the current Attorney-General could say, at the end of her long career, 'I was involved in this process.' It's a good thing. It's a good outcome. I have no qualms and I have no reservations in relation to this. This happens at the state and territory level. It's good practice. It's world's best practice. We should do it. It's long overdue, and I support the bills.
Low-Income Superannuation Tax Offset | Motions | House debates
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Aluminium Industry | Statements by Members | House debates
The Albanese Labor government is backing local manufacturing and jobs at Capral Aluminium in my electorate of Blair. We're extending our antidumping protections to support locally made aluminium...
The Albanese Labor government is backing local manufacturing and jobs at Capral Aluminium in my electorate of Blair. We're extending our antidumping protections to support locally made aluminium products for another five years following an investigation by the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. These measures help maintain the value of Australian-produced aluminium extrusions, which are used in the construction, automotive, aerospace and electronics industries. The reality is that a large volume of underpriced aluminium extrusion imports into Australia are undercutting local industry prices and undermining Australian jobs and investment through unfair trade practices. Under our protections, these products will be subject to import duties if they are priced below local market values, so local products can compete on a level playing field. Capral is Australia's largest producer of aluminium extrusions as a major facility employing more than 400 workers in Ipswich in my electorate. So this decision will help preserve local manufacturing industry and jobs. I've visited Capral many times and I support local jobs in the local industry. Free trade and fairer trade mean stronger suburbs and stronger industrial regions and mean that manufacturers like Capral Aluminium can invest with confidence in jobs, which is good for our local economy. It's all part of our Future Made in Australia plan to protect local manufacturers and secure jobs.
Medicare | Statements by Members | House debates
Last week I dropped into the Riverlink Medical & Dental Centre in Ipswich to celebrate the Albanese Labor government's massive expansion of bulk-billing. On 1 November our historic investment...
Last week I dropped into the Riverlink Medical & Dental Centre in Ipswich to celebrate the Albanese Labor government's massive expansion of bulk-billing. On 1 November our historic investment to strengthen Medicare kicked in, with bulk-billing incentives to GPs for every patient they bulk-bill and extra incentives for practices which bulk-bill every patient. This is the single biggest investment in Medicare in over 40 years and delivers on Labor's signature election commitment. Currently, around 83 per cent of GP services in Blair are bulk-billed, and at least nine clinics have said they will become fully bulk-billing clinics, thanks to our new incentives. Riverlink Medical & Dental Centre are one of these practices, and last year they saw nearly 87,000 people in my local area for health services. They're the home of the Medicare urgent care clinic as well, which has seen nearly 30,000 patients. The practice estimates that moving to 100 per cent bulk-billing will save our local community more than $238,000 every year. It was great to drop in with the local state MP, Wendy Bourne—the member for Ipswich West—to chat with patients and to thank the hardworking local staff there. We're making it easier to see a doctor and providing significant cost-of-living relief for locals. All you need is your Medicare card—not your credit card.
Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Most Australians don't commit criminal offences and don't get involved in car accidents, so they don't end up in courts, criminal or civil. But 111,000 Australians, or people who aspire to be...
Most Australians don't commit criminal offences and don't get involved in car accidents, so they don't end up in courts, criminal or civil. But 111,000 Australians, or people who aspire to be Australians, appeared before the Administrative Review Tribunal in the last 12 months. When you look at the jurisdiction of this particular tribunal, which is the subject of the amending bill we are talking about today, you will see the breadth of the jurisdiction of the ART. Child support—you would think that that would be a very large proportion of the work the ART does, but it is a very small proportion. There are well over 600,000 Australians who interact or are a part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but a very small proportion of those people ever get to the ART. Indeed, you would think, with the number of Australians who interact with the social security system, that there'd be many people, through Centrelink or paid parental leave, who would be engaging with the ART as a litigant, but hardly anyone of them does compared to what I'm about to talk about. It's the same with veterans or workers compensation cases, or indeed taxation matters. The majority of the work that's done by the ART is in the area of migration, or indeed those people seeking protection. In any given year, migration makes up 50 to 60 per cent of the work of the ART, or its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That's what's the case. Of those migration cases, about two-thirds of the work that's done relates to student visa issues. If you take migration together with the protection visas people are seeking, they form an overwhelming amount of the work that the ART does. So the bill we're debating today is important. It addresses efficiency and effectiveness in our system, and it maintains integrity and allows people to still pursue their rights in a fair way—the idea of dealing with matters on the papers is a very common thing when it comes to our judicial system. I'm pleased to speak on this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We are committed as a government to upholding the rule of law. We are committed as a government to enabling access to justice and maintaining and promoting the public's trust in our legal system, as a matter of principle. But there won't be trust in the system if people don't get dealt with in a timely way. The 111,000 Australians who dealt with the ART last year, according to the figures from the ART itself, need to make sure they get access to justice. Administrative law and merits review are important. They're a longstanding pillar of Australia's system of government and our legal system. People who are impacted by decisions of government have a recourse, a right to review, or an avenue of appeal in a relatively informal way. It's critical. We see that often with matters that are dealt with in, say, a lower part of the system, where it's not necessarily a magistrate or a judge but a registrar who deals with matters on an informal basis, in the civil courts. That's why I say that this is a good decision of the government. It is efficient but still fair. It maintains the right of individuals impacted by a government decision to pursue a review of that decision. This ART is an absolute necessity that we undertook to legislate to establish. Remember what the former government did to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. They absolutely stacked it with their mates. Any form of failed Liberal or National Party candidate they could find who might have had a law degree from some obscure university they stuck on the AAT. It was astonishing. They didn't even need a law degree, frankly. They just stuck them on there. And the great irony of the whole thing with the AAT is that you would see in the media the Liberal and National Party politicians constantly berating the AAT for its failure when they were the ones that stuck their mates on there. And they say: 'It is inefficient. They're making decisions we do not like.' Well, I'm sorry. There have been a lot of prime ministers and premiers in the history of this country who had decisions they didn't like. I channel Ben Chifley with the bank nationalisation decision. Prime ministers and premiers do not like a whole bunch of decisions made by courts and tribunals. We had to put in the ART. We just had to, to bring integrity back into the system. They made such a mess of the AAT. We had to resolve the huge backlog of student visas created as a legacy of the Morrison government flinging open the borders after the pandemic. And they constantly criticise us about migration, but the massive increase in migration after COVID happened on their watch. They initiated it, often with the support, can I just say, of the business community and the university sector as well. This legislation will improve the tribunal's efficiency. There are clear existing caseloads, and we need to address them. We need to reduce the likelihood of backlogs in the future, especially for migration matters. So the bill introduces a new, on-the-papers review process without an oral hearing, and that is just so common in lots of civil matters that are dealt with in our legal system. Student visa matters, like I said, take up two-thirds of the migration matters that the ART deals with. If you look at student visa matters as a percentage of the total number of people who engage with the ART, it is an enormous percentage. We're dealing with a really big problem that has been created courtesy of the Morrison government, and there is a need for us to address this. We're going to create a new discretion for the tribunal to decide not to hold a hearing if additional circumstances and specified criteria are met. These reforms are balanced and targeted. They will enable the tribunal to efficiently manage the caseload. Quick, efficient and informal merits review is a fundamental feature of our legal system. To say it's not is simply nonsense. It just doesn't bear fact. The fact is it is a feature of our legal system. This will improve government decision-making and help maintain public confidence in our institutions. We're committed to merits review. That is precisely why we abolished the dysfunctional AAT. It was beset, can I just say, with mismanagement and political stacking by those opposite. The new ART that replaced the AAT came into operation in October last year. It's a sustainable model, but we need to improve it. As part of this, we're committed to making sure the ART has the tools it needs to deliver timely and high-quality review of government decisions. One of the core objectives of the ART is to ensure that applications are resolved quickly and with little expense. The cost of justice—as a former litigation lawyer, I know—often results in inequities and injustices in our legal system due to the power imbalance between litigants. Anyone who has ever been charged with a criminal offence knows the power of the state in criminal matters. Anyone that has to litigate a corporate or civil matter involving commercial matters knows the power of money. Anyone that has to make an application for property settlement in a family law case, when you are the party that's at home and often without the qualifications, skills, talents, ability and money against a very wealthy person, knows the power, imbalances and injustices in our systems. So we need to make sure that we can equalise it, but we also need to make sure that we have efficient methods, and that's why this whole process under the ART is critical for those 111,000 Australians and people who engage with the system. Onshore applicants seeking review of a decision to refuse a grant of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process. We, as politicians in the House of Representatives and, indeed, in the other place, would know that our offices deal with people every day in relation to those issues. In this context, efficient review procedures are important to reduce delays in decision-making. Backlogs and extended waiting times at the tribunal create incentives for non-genuine applicants to apply for review in order to extend their stays in Australia. For genuine applicants, this creates an access to justice issue, as the volume of applications that must be dealt with, including from non-genuine applicants, means they have to wait months and, indeed, sometimes years for a decision. This point was made in the Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system, delivered by Ms Christine Nixon AO, APM in March 2023. The challenge we face now, since the tribunal was established by the Albanese government, is that the tribunal has seen an unprecedented level of demand for independent review services and, in particular, for applications for review of the student visas I referred to and refusals by delegates in relation to those matters. What happened was that, at the height of the pandemic in early 2022, the former Morrison government invited international students back to Australia to work in critical sectors to address workforce shortages. It might seem fine in principle, but the implementation of this decision was badly botched. It effectively opened the floodgates, without any proper management or oversight, and in particular they corrupted the student visa pipeline with their terrible decision to uncap student visa work rights. Students were allowed unlimited access to the job market when they were supposedly in full-time study. The result of this was that a lot of non-genuine students came in, not to study but to earn money, which they sent back home and, thus, contributed significantly to the current backlog the ART is dealing with. Another contributing factor was the post-COVID-19 temporary activity visa, which allowed people on student visas to, at no cost, switch from their student visa or suspend it and work unlimited hours. Even before the current surge, the old, dysfunctional AAT had a shocking case backlog which was allowed to build under the coalition. The reality is that our government inherited a shocking mess in this area, and we're attempting to deal with it. We tried to rectify this by putting international student numbers on a more sustainable path and reducing the number of student visas issued. To be clear, international education is an incredibly important export industry for Australia, including in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. I've got two campuses from the University of Southern Queensland, and I know how important it is for my local community. Indeed, greater priority has now been given to regional and outer metropolitan universities like UniSQ and to TAFE, but we need to manage the growth of the sector in a sustainable fashion, along with our migration program more broadly, and that's exactly what this government is doing. Notwithstanding our efforts in this space, since last year the ART has continued to experience a surge in applications for reviews of decisions to review student visas related to that post-pandemic boom in international students. Given this tribunal is a demand driven organisation, this has highlighted the importance of ensuring that it's equipped with the tools it needs for quick and efficient merits review. It's clear, from the recent operational experience of the tribunal, that some of its current procedures are not flexible enough. That's why we're doing what we're doing here. Inefficient allocation of resources and significant delays and backlogs, particularly in the temporary migration space, means that applicants are left in limbo for far too long—a one-size-fits-all approach that's resource intensive and not appropriately targeted. So this bill gives the tribunal the additional flexibility. It enhances the powers and procedures of the tribunal to ensure that it achieves the objective we want: resolving matters as expeditiously yet as justly as possible. Informed by the recommendation of the Nixon review and, I might add, the operational experience of the ART since October 2024, the bill ensures that the merits review is proportionate in so many ways. It amends the legislation to ensure an on-the-papers process, and that's important. What we do in relation to this is critical. We'll seek submissions and consider those submissions before a decision, and that's important. The process will reduce backlogs. Oral hearings will not be required for this visa class, and the growing backlog will be addressed. This is an important reform. We're cleaning up the Liberals and Nationals mess yet again.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025, Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm directing them through the chair—of course I am—but I'm addressing the claims of those opposite. That's exactly what they're doing. They claim, for example, that there's a...
I'm directing them through the chair—of course I am—but I'm addressing the claims of those opposite. That's exactly what they're doing. They claim, for example, that there's a trade-off between housing and superannuation. They have failed to address this bill. Not once did the member for Goldstein address the substance of this bill—not once in 15 minutes. This is about making sure that superannuation is paid on time, with people's wages, so they can get their superannuation when they get their salary. I think that's fair. I think if you walked down Riverlink Shopping Centre in Ipswich and asked people shopping in Kmart, or in the food court, they'd say it was a good thing, the right thing to do. And this legislation is another proud Labor reform. It means more super for workers. Yet those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, oppose it—once again. We've already implemented a number of reforms to strengthen the superannuation system over the term of this government, including paying superannuation on government-funded paid parental leave and increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. Only a Labor government has done that. Reaching 12 per cent was a signature policy, built on decades of reforms by Labor governments. Now we're pursuing additional reforms of superannuation. By the way, once again we heard a speech from those opposite showing the divisions between the major political parties in this country. Superannuation is one. Universal health care is another. Public or state education is another, as well as people's rights at work. The subject of this bill is superannuation, and this is yet again a demonstration of why the public's vote matters when it comes to people's financial and economic security and dignity in retirement. Payday superannuation is a once-in-a-generation reform that aims to tackle unpaid superannuation, creating a better system for workers and employers alike. We know that for too long too many workers have waited months to receive all their superannuation entitlement. It's been estimated that 3.3 million Australians missed out on $5.7 billion in super in 2022-23, losing on average $1,730 each year, based on analysis of the latest ATO data. It is simply not true to say that every employer pays superannuation when they should or on time. It is simply untrue, yet the member for Goldstein made that claim in the House of Representatives. It is simply untrue. And the workers of this country, young people in particular, know that's not true. There have been many parents listening to this debate who would know that their daughter or son has come to them and said, 'Mum or dad, I got paid my wages, but I didn't get paid super.' Not every employer does the right thing. The member for Goldstein railed and said that we never support small business. I established a small business. I built a small business with the hard work, effort and cooperation of my employees, and my partners, shareholders and directors later on. I know what it's like to build a business. I know the challenges and the difficulties, but you've got to do the right thing. You pay your wages on time, and you should pay your superannuation on time. In my outer-suburban and regional seat of Blair, unpaid super costs 27,800 local workers. That's 31 per cent—nearly one in three—of the local workforce, and it cost them $1,770 each, on average, or a combined $49.1 million in 2022-23. So it's simply untrue to say that all employers pay their superannuation on time or do to right thing. Over six years, from 2017-18 to 2022-23, unpaid superannuation steadily grew around the country. In my electorate, it cost workers a total of $185.9 million in underpayments. This reform will benefit thousands of workers in my community and boost the retirement incomes of millions of Australians. It's a signature Labor legislation. It's about ensuring superannuation is delivered on time and people can have secure and dignified retirement. It's part of our commitment to making sure people earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more. If you listened to those opposite, you would think they want people to retire with less. At the passage of this legislation, employers will be required to pay their employees' superannuation on payday, at the same time as their salary and wages, in line with every pay cycle rather than quarterly. This simple, practical change will mean more frequent contributions, earlier compounding returns and stronger retirement balances for millions of Australians. The bill does three things. From 1 July 2026 it will require employers to ensure superannuation contributions are received by the employee's fund within seven business days of payday, or they will be liable for the superannuation guarantee charge. There are a number of types of superannuation, just as there are different types of toothpaste and cars. There are industry funds, retail funds, different fund managers and different names of superannuation schemes and policies in this country. But to label all fund managers as corrupt and part of a cartel, like the member for Goldstein did, is simply wrong. It is just erroneous to do that. This reform will strengthen Australia's superannuation scheme, make employees receive their superannuation contributions more often and help reduce unpaid super. Paying the superannuation contribution more frequently will mean that employees can track their entitlements more expeditiously and helps employers improve their payroll management. This change is part of a broader government initiative to boost retirement savings. Secondly, the legislation will help the Australian Taxation Office enforce the law and more quickly identify employers not making contributions. It therefore strengthens the scheme. It means as well that the ATO will receive additional resourcing to help detect unpaid super payments earlier, and the government will set enhanced targets for the ATO for the recovery of those payments. As part of this, the ATO will draw on single-touch payroll data, which employers already report, and match it with data from super funds to detect missing payments in near-real time. Thirdly, the bill will update the superannuation guarantee charge, which is the penalty employers face when they fail to pay super on time. Under the new framework, the super guarantee charge will apply for each payday an employer fails to pay super in full and on time. This will allow the charge to better target employer behaviour and ensure employees are compensated for delays, including through notional earnings and penalties. These are simple, commonsense changes that will strengthen our system. Workers will receive what they are legally owed. Employees will benefit from earlier and more frequent contributions. Around nine million Australians will benefit from higher retirement savings from receiving their superannuation guarantee contributions earlier and more frequently. On average this will deliver an extra $7,700 per working Australian by retirement, because being paid super sooner helps to grow people's retirement eggs much faster, thanks to the benefit of compound interest. Now, let's look at the example of a 25-year-old median-income earner, say a hospitality worker at the Orion Springfield Central shopping centre in my electorate, currently receiving their superannuation quarterly and their wages fortnightly. With payday superannuation, the super fund will get it sooner, meaning higher earnings for the worker over their working life. It could see them being $6,000, or 1.5 per cent, better off at retirement, from the compounding benefits of super being paid more frequently. The reality is that this issue disproportionately affects more vulnerable Australians, particularly women and younger workers, who are most at risk of a power imbalance in the workplace and more likely to miss out on their super when employers do the wrong thing. Among the hardest hit are women, who on average are already retiring with a quarter less super than men. Younger workers and low-income earners are also at risk, with one in two workers who earn under $25,000 a year having unpaid super entitlements and with almost half of all people reporting unpaid super to the ATO being under 35 years of age. That's the power imbalance that I talked about. The changes in this bill will particularly benefit young people working in retail and hospitality and those in low-paid, casual and insecure work, who are more likely to miss out when super is paid less frequently. It will help thousands of these workers in my electorate. When a worker misses out on their super altogether, it can have profound impacts, with losses continuing to compound, leaving them with tens of thousands of dollars less in their pocket at retirement. It means a less secure and less dignified retirement, financially. For example, an average 35-year-old worker—say someone at Riverlink Shopping Centre, in my electorate, working in hospitality or retail—with unpaid superannuation will be $30,000 poorer at retirement. When employers go bust, the impact is even worse. For an average 35-year-old working in the private sector, a liquidated business could leave their retirement balance more than $90,000 worse off in today's dollar terms. The security of retirement is really important, but if the business you're working for goes into administration or liquidation, it's a big problem to claim your superannuation. Importantly, payday super will boost transparency for workers, particularly young people, who typically assume that their super is being paid with their wages and that people are doing the right thing. It will be much easier and faster not only for the ATO to detect and fix underpayments but also for employers and employees in the workplace to keep track of what's going on. It means they'll be able to consult with one another further. Treasury and the ATO will continue to consult closely with industry—and they have done so, by the way, contrary to what the previous speaker said. The ATO has advised that it intends to consult on its approach and compliance for 12 months after the changes start and will seek to differentiate between low- and high-risk employers. This legislation is important. It will make the superannuation system fairer, from top to bottom. It will mean a better deal and more superannuation for low-income workers, and I reckon that's a pretty good thing for the economy and for the people who work in my electorate.
I've never heard such tosh and nonsense from those opposite. The member for Goldstein thinks he's a member of the modern and moderate Liberal Party. Just that speech: railing against public or...
I've never heard such tosh and nonsense from those opposite. The member for Goldstein thinks he's a member of the modern and moderate Liberal Party. Just that speech: railing against public or state education, claiming it controls children, and the idea that somehow superannuation—and I'll use the words he used about superannuation—is malicious, that there is denial and corruption, cartels and kickbacks, all associated with superannuation. So, when you take your superannuation at the end of your hard earning and working life and realise that it has been a Labor government that has helped you to gain your dignified and financially secure retirement, know that those opposite, in my 18 years of parliament, never once supported a superannuation guarantee increase. They delayed it again and again. The member calls superannuation 'neo-feudalism'. What nonsense! It's absolute rubbish! Those opposite would have more credibility in their view on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 if they had supported any of the housing reforms of the Labor government, such as the $43 billion Homes for Australia plan. Those opposite spent nearly 10 years in government and did nothing on housing—could barely find a housing minister to represent the portfolio. And when it came to the reforms on housing that we initiated, they voted against them. So, they've got this false dichotomy between housing and superannuation. We want homes for Australia. More than 4,000 people in my electorate have benefited from the home guarantee five per cent. Those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, opposed it. And 55,000 social and affordable houses being built under our programs: those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, opposed it, as well as the Help to Buy Scheme and the 45 per cent increase in rent assistance. Those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, opposed these things, again and again. So, don't come in here and give us lectures on your newfound concern about the housing difficulties of this country when you oppose it. This legislation that we're putting forward is about ensuring that superannuation is paid.
Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025, Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm pleased to speak on the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These...
I'm pleased to speak on the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These bills deliver on a key Albanese Labor government election commitment to establish an independent Australian centre for disease control and responds to recommendations from the COVID-19 response inquiry report released in October 2024, a landmark inquiry. It was established by our government in September 2023 to consider the Commonwealth's responses to the pandemic, including vaccination and financial support. This is because we thought it was important to be transparent about the response from a Commonwealth point of view to COVID-19 and how we managed it and the lessons we can learn to inform better management of future public health emergencies. That inquiry found that Australia was one of the most successful nations in its pandemic response, but, as a country, our preparedness left a lot to be desired. I can recall that back in the 1980s people were talking about an Australian centre for disease control in response to HIV and AIDS, and I'm pleased to see this legislation before the chamber today. It has taken a while, but I think it's a matter of good public policy and a matter of necessity. That's why it's so puzzling that those opposite are opposed to this. We've seen them rail against tertiary education. They don't like TAFE, the way they go on—they think we shouldn't be providing free TAFE. They don't like properly funding the university sector. The arts seem something that they think is an optional extra. Climate science seems like something that they don't believe in. Now it seems that health science and its efficacy are at risk of being something they deny. They don't like medical research, and they don't seem to support the idea that we should prepare ourselves. This was a once-in-100 experience that we had with COVID-19. But those opposite also, when I listen to their speeches relating to this bill, seem to forget that they were in government at the time and that the National Cabinet was something that was initiated by Prime Minister Scott Morrison. I think they also seem to forget that, when the colonies formed the Federation in 1901, premiers were powerful. The states were still powerful. We might have had some changes with respect to the financial capacities between the Commonwealth and the states on income tax, and I'm not going to go through the High Court decisions there. We might have seen cooperative federalism. We might have seen the Commonwealth government having greater powers through High Court decisions—sometimes High Court decisions frustrated Labor governments; Ben Chifley could talk all about that. But, when it comes to issues of the Constitution, it is very specific about the Commonwealth's power under section 51 of the Constitution. The states have primary responsibility for the delivery of public health services through hospitals and are in control of their state borders. I don't understand Gough Whitlam talking about rail gauges, but the state governments have enormous power, and during the pandemic we were reminded of the power of the premiers. But those opposite seem to think there were no LNP or Liberal and National party premiers dealing with a Liberal prime minister. They have criticised us on transparency and accountability during their speeches on this bill. It's a bit galling that those who brought us robodebt and a prime minister that actually put himself into multiple ministerial portfolios criticised us in relation to gag issues. They're the party that gagged nearly every charitable organisation they could possibly fund. If you weren't gagged and didn't sign up, you couldn't get funding. That was what prime ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison presided over. We had lectures during this debate about all these issues as if they have some sort of political amnesia, as if they never formed government from 2013 to 2022. We've got a bill before the chamber today that those opposite claim they're not going to support. That denialism seems so evident, so obvious, in their fractured factional thinking, with Liberal against Liberal, National against National, Liberal against National. It's there in the speeches we heard in this chamber yesterday and today. This legislation is absolutely good public policy and deserves to be supported by everyone in this chamber. Now, the crossbenches have some amendments that they want to bring in, and it's their province and their right as parliamentarians to bring those amendments forward. But those opposite have railed against this legislation here. They took a policy to the last election opposing this legislation. It's as if the consequences of that election had no impact on their thinking not just on climate but also on disease control and management. It's as if they completely forgot about what happened in May 2025. They must have thought they weren't in power before May 2022. This legislation is absolutely vital, and we must do better if we're faced with a pandemic in the future. The doctors, the nurses, the paramedics, the aged-care workers, the teachers, the couriers, the truck drivers, the logistics workers who I met during the pandemic, in my community of Blair in South-East Queensland, are heroes. The council workers who did so much great work during that time, the retail workers who suffered such shocking abuse by people who misbehaved terribly in places like Woolworths, Drakes, Coles et cetera—they are the heroes of the pandemic as well, and we should honour them and thank them for what they did. They got us through. It was a tough time. In aged care, anyone who's had a loved one or a friend die and was denied the opportunity or had limited opportunity to go to the funeral, anyone who was denied opportunity to go to a family member's or friend's wedding—we faced those challenges as a family as well. Thousands of Australians lost their lives, while many had their livelihoods severely impacted. I know businesses, workers and community groups in my electorate were profoundly affected. Let me give you one example. A JBS—the meatworks—in my electorate, which is the biggest private employer in the Ipswich region, experienced a perfect storm during COVID. Market conditions were compounded by the Chinese government's beef import ban, widely seen as a retaliation for former prime minister Morrison's call for an investigation internationally into COVID. As a result, the plant had to cut back from two shifts to one. Six-hundred jobs, Member, were lost because of your side of politics. Six-hundred people lost their jobs in my local communities. So don't give us this nonsense about how wonderful Prime Minister Morrison was. To add insult to injury, the Morrison government refused to allow JBS meatworkers to access JobKeeper wage subsidies—a devastating blow for those workers. When I asked a question of Prime Minister Morrison in question time, he said, 'They can go and get JobSeeker.' They couldn't keep their jobs. That was the failure of those opposite. It was an awful time for people, and it was a real time. Borders were closed. Australians were asked to stay in their homes, quarantining at home or in a hotel when they went across state and territory borders. We all went through it. Unless you're an ACT MP or senator, we all had to do that at some stage. For Anzac Day services, which are so important for Australians, we celebrated a moment of remembrance outside in our driveways. The inquiry found that an economic response to the pandemic was critical to achieving the desired public health outcomes. Mistakes were made. There were frustrations and inconsistencies. We know that; people experienced it. We know, as parliamentarians, that happened for all of us. Modelling cited in the report I referred to said peak inflation could have been reduced by at least two per cent if the economic policy settings during the pandemic had better matched the public health restrictions. Global supply of stocks contributed to a substantial increase in inflationary pressures in our economy and are still having an impact on it. The impact was compounded by poor policy choices from the Morrison government. The inquiry report and the progress we have made are proof of this government's economically responsible management. We focused on fighting inflation, delivering responsible economic cost-of-living relief and fixing budgetary health problems. But we know, as a key finding of the inquiry, that Australia went into the pandemic with no playbook, badly stretched health and aged-care systems, no clear national management plan and deficiencies in the National Medical Stockpile. Can I say, as a Labor politician, I really felt from time to time, rightly or wrongly, that there was some politicisation when it came to the distribution of vaccinations. That's how I felt from time to time. The review showed gaps in data and data-sharing between the Commonwealth and states, as well as fragmented, outdated planning and preparation for health emergencies. Shockingly, when we came to government, we were the only country without a CDC equivalent in the OECD. Now, even more shocking was the fact the former government had not led a national pandemic drill for 12 years. We were hopelessly and woefully underprepared for the COVID pandemic. Our response was confused, slow and lacked authority. And I might add, as I said before, that the Morrison government botched the rollout of the vaccinations. The inquiry warned we mustn't let this happen ever again. Infectious disease outbreaks, AMR, climate change, changing geopolitical tensions and other things have all impacted on our national health security, and they all demand a permanent national public health authority right now. Hence, one of the central recommendations of the independent COVID inquiry, which those opposite are ignoring again, is a new Australian centre for disease control. That's exactly what this legislation is doing. Back in October 2020, in opposition, we committed ourselves to a transparent, trustworthy and independent CDC consistent with the outcome of the inquiry. When we came to government, we established an interim Australian CDC in January 2023 to immediately improve the way we prepare for and respond to health emergencies. When you listen to what they say, it's almost as if those opposite didn't know that—as if somehow nothing happened when we got to government except this legislation. We've established an interim CDC within the health department. In October last year we announced that we would invest $251.7 million to deliver the CDC over four years to 2027-28. On top of that, we've committed $73.3 million in ongoing funding from 2028-29 to enable the ongoing operation of the centre. This bill, along with the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill, delivers an independent statutory agency that will bring critical information experts to protect Australia from diseases and other public health threats. And those opposite today, when given the opportunity, will vote against it. The Australian CDC will provide high-quality analysis and advice on public health risks to government and the Australian community. It will streamline our public health data-sharing and linkages across the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. Australians deserve public health data, insights and advice that's high quality, nationally consistent and responsive, not just a crisis every day—and not just when a crisis happens on a Liberal Party watch; it should be available when it happens under a Labor Party government as well. The new centre promotes coordinated action to prepare for and respond to public health risks. I mean, the National Cabinet that Prime Minister Morrison presided over was all about that, but those opposite seem to have forgotten that and don't want that National Cabinet approach. A transparent, trusted and independent CDC will strengthen our public capacity to respond, improve our preparedness, and safeguard the health and wellbeing of all Australians. We're safeguarded in many ways by that green Medicare card and by a public health system at a state and territory level that we fund, and the federal government puts a four in front of the amount of money we give to the states and territories, in terms of percentage. But we can do better, and the missing link in our preparedness and prevention is the CDC. Today we've got an opportunity to vote for it, and those opposite are going to vote against it.
Aged Care | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering generational reforms to aged care after a decade of cuts and neglect?
Ukraine | Private Members' Business | House debates
I want to thank my good friend the member for Adelaide for this motion. I want to acknowledge his longstanding support for the people of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Australian community in his...
I want to thank my good friend the member for Adelaide for this motion. I want to acknowledge his longstanding support for the people of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Australian community in his electorate and across the country. Just over a week ago, on 24 August, we marked the 34th anniversary of the Ukrainian declaration of independence. It was wonderful to see the Ukrainian community sharing the occasion, with independence day events around Australia, many of which were attended by MPs and senators, including in Brisbane. At the same time, it was a bittersweet moment and a poignant reminder of the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russia's illegal, immoral and unprovoked full-scale invasion of their country. I want to take this opportunity to reiterate Australia's strong and steadfast support for Ukraine and its people, not just because it's in Australia's national interest but because it's the right thing to do. What happens in the Euro-Atlantic region has serious implications for our region, the Indo Pacific, and vice-versa. In my capacity as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have met the Ukrainian ambassador, His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko, a number of times, and I've conveyed that message to him directly. Make no mistake: this is a David and Goliath struggle not just for the people of Ukraine but for their national sovereignty and existence. This is a monumental struggle for international rule of law and the global rules based order, and it is a just war on the part of Ukraine. It's clear that President Putin's regime has imperialistic designs for Ukraine and beyond. We must ensure that Russia's illegal and immoral actions are not rewarded through any peace process. Australia supports all meaningful progress towards a just and enduring peace in Ukraine for broader security in Europe, but pressure will need to be applied to Russia to engage in good faith. Australia will continue to work on delivering concrete actions to support Ukraine now and into the future. We are always open to considering any new proposal to support Ukraine, as we've done in the past according to our capacity and based on our comparative strengths. We have provided more than $1.5 billion in support, including $1.3 billion in military assistance and through vital equipment and training of Ukrainian forces—making us the largest non-NATO contributor of military assistance to Ukraine—and more than $85 million in humanitarian assistance. As part of this, we transferred the first tranche of Australian gifted M1A1 Abrams tanks in July, in response to a request from Ukraine. The Australian Defence Force also continues to contribute to multinational efforts to train Ukrainian military personnel under Operation Kudu. I met with ADF personnel based in southern England who are training with Ukrainian citizen soldiers as a part of Operation Interflex, and I spoke with Ukrainian translators and Ukrainian troops. I did this as part of a parliamentary delegation to the UK in 2023. The ADF personnel who were there are committed, like the Australian public, to training thousands of these Ukrainian citizen soldiers. We have, in fact, trained about 3,000 of their soldiers. Australia is open to working with other countries, as we've done in that effort and operation. Australia will consider any further request to contribute to future peacekeeping efforts in support of a just and lasting peace, which we all want for Ukraine. We have, as a country, a proud tradition of supporting peace through 80 years of contributions to international peacekeeping missions. Of course, peacekeeping missions, by definition, require a precondition of peace, and that's why we support all meaningful progress towards a just and enduring peace in Ukraine for the broader security of Europe. The future of Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. At the end of the day, a lasting peace should uphold Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, support security and stability in Europe and ensure that Russia does not renew its aggression. To that end, we welcome the United States recently convening the meeting with President Zelenskyy and the European leaders to work towards a peace deal that ends Russia's illegal and immoral war and safeguards security and stability. Now it's up to President Putin. He needs to show he's serious. So far, he hasn't. We will continue to support a just, lasting and comprehensive peace for Ukraine, on its terms, and security and stability in Europe.
Bowel Cancer | Statements by Members | House debates
Today I met with a constituent of mine, Ipswich mother-of-three Ann-Marie Foster, who is affected by early-onset bowel cancer. Anne-Marie is in parliament today for the Call on Canberra, Bowel...
Today I met with a constituent of mine, Ipswich mother-of-three Ann-Marie Foster, who is affected by early-onset bowel cancer. Anne-Marie is in parliament today for the Call on Canberra, Bowel Cancer Australia's annual advocacy event, which is supported by the Parliamentary Friends of Bowel Cancer, of which I'm a member. Australia has the world's highest rates of early-onset bowel cancer—diagnosed in people under 50 years of age—with over 1,700 young Australians diagnosed every year. This is despite the fact that we have a world-class health system. Early-onset patients can take 60 per cent longer to receive a diagnosis, and that results in delays in treatment and poorer outcomes. Ann-Marie was diagnosed in October 2023 and has had to undergo five surgeries and more than 20 gruelling rounds of chemotherapy, with ongoing treatment. Throughout this journey she's become deeply committed to advocating for change and is currently involved in Bowel Cancer Australia's Never2Young campaign, calling for greater investment in primary care, development of age-specific clinical practice guidelines and increased federal funding for research to investigate the causes of early-onset bowel cancer. Sadly, Ann-Marie lost her best friend in February this year at the age of 44 due to the same illness. I want to thank Ann-Marie for sharing her experiences with me today. I wish Anne-Marie and all those like her well. We must do better in this country.
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm pleased to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, to support the...
I'm pleased to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, to support the passage of them and to talk about the positive impact of the budget handed down in March and our commitments from the May election and the government's economic plan and reform agenda for this term of government, both for the nation and for my electorate of Blair. At the outset, I want to say a few things about the broader economic context because it's always critical for the framing of any budget. The Labor Party is the party of lower taxes. The coalition voted against our tax cuts in the last parliament and took a policy to the last election, notwithstanding what the shadow Treasurer said, that would increase personal income tax on the 80,000 Australian taxpayers in my electorate and also around the country. Let's be clear. When we came to power, we were emerging from a sustained period of global inflation, and that inflation surge was primarily caused by international supply-side factors such as the war in Ukraine, which had an impact on energy prices, and the global supply chain pressures arising out of the post-COVID international economic environment. This caused inflation and cost-of-living pressures to rise well before our government came to power in Australia. Inflation at a high level is something we inherited, not something we caused, as those opposite and their cheer squads, some in the media, would like to assert. We're putting downward pressure on inflation and bringing inflation into the band of two to three per cent, and we have done so. That has been the centrepiece of government economic strategy not just over our first four budgets. For governments for a long time, the aspiration has been to have inflation within a two to three per cent band. Of course, it is something that the Reserve Bank of Australia also supports strongly. We've made significant progress on that front—inflation is below three per cent; it was six per cent and rising when we came to office in 2022. New monthly ABS figures out last week show headline and underlying inflation is still well below three per cent, for the eighth month in a row, and still within the Reserve Bank's target band. On top of this, the ABS data shows that the government's cost-of-living policies are actually detracting from inflationary pressures, not adding to them—contrary to what those opposite think. While most other advanced economies have had to trade progress on inflation for higher unemployment, negative economic growth or, indeed, a recession, we've managed to preserve a strong labour market at the same time as strong job and wage growth. It's no small achievement, and I commend the government—the Treasurer, in particular—for it. The latest jobs figures for July show Australia's unemployment rate remains historically low, falling to 4.2 per cent, while a record 1.15 million new jobs have been created since Labor came to office in 2022. What's more is that real wages, which were falling sharply under those opposite—remember, it's a deliberate design feature to keep wages low under them—have been growing strongly under us. We've improved the budget, with the first back-to-back surpluses in almost two decades. They promised to be 'back in black' and to have a budget surplus every year. They didn't deliver one for the near-decade they were in government. We've brought debt and debt interest down and we've restrained real spending growth with a $207 billion positive turnaround in the budget, the biggest nominal improvement in the budget in a single term. Unlike our predecessors, we've banked the vast majority of revenue upgrades, with fiscal policy and cost-of-living assistance working hand in glove with the Reserve Bank's monetary policy. In summary, we've been able to pull off lower debt, reduced inflation, low unemployment, falling interest rates, higher real wages, improved living standards, record job creation and a growing economy. That's what a good government does. It's no small feat, and it means we're well-positioned to navigate the uncertainty and volatility we're seeing in the global economy right now. But there's more work to do. While the data and economic fundamentals are looking much better, these numbers don't always reflect people's lived experience or how people are feeling in the real world. We know a lot of people are still doing it tough, especially those vulnerable members of our community, so the government's focus has also been about cost-of-living relief. We've been responsible economic managers but want to make meaningful cost-of-living relief while building Australia's future with a stronger and more productive economy. I want to talk about some key budget measures and election commitments that will benefit my local community. First, the government is delivering more tax relief in the budget, with two more tax cuts— those opposite took to the election a position opposing them—to every Australian taxpayer in 2026 and 2027, adding to the first round we delivered in July last year. That means 80,000 taxpayers in my electorate of Blair will receive a new tax cut from next year of up to $268 in 2026-27 and up to $536 in 2027-28. It will increase take-home pay for people and ease cost-of-living pressures, especially for people on low and middle incomes. In fact, the OECD's 2025 employment outlook analysis confirms that the Albanese government is delivering the lowest personal income tax rates in 50 years, while unemployment levels are below the OECD average. That analysis also notes that, when combined with the government's cheaper childcare policy, our tax cuts will increase the financial rewards for working people and, in fact, will help with additional working days, especially for secondary earners in the household—in other words, people will get a benefit from working harder and longer, including more money in their pockets and more financial security for their households. It is also expected that there would be a boost female workforce participation, which, in turn, would increase our GDP or economic growth. The OECD analysis is really a ringing endorsement of the government's economic strategy. In addition to tax cuts, every household in my electorate, along with eligible small businesses, is getting an extra $150 to help with their power bills, building on previous rounds of energy bill relief. On the health front, our record $8.5 billion investment in Medicare announced earlier this year is expected to see an additional 117,700 bulk-billed visits and a boost to the number of fully bulk-billed GP practices to around 35 in my electorate. This will save local patients hundreds of dollars a year, depending on how often they visit their GP. On top of this, the government has delivered two Medicare urgent care clinics for our community—one in Ipswich, in my electorate, and one in Goodna in the member for Oxley's electorate—which provide bulk-billed walk-in care to locals who need it. I'm proud to have opened the Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in 2023. It's been a huge success, with more than 2,500 visits in the first year alone, and it's helped to ease pressure on the Ipswich Hospital emergency department. Complementing our record investments in Medicare, my constituents will also save from cheaper medicines with the government's reduction of the maximum general co-payment for medicines to $25 under the PBS from 1 January next year. That means more than 42,000 cheaper scripts are expected to be dispensed, on average, each year in Blair, saving people more than $1.5 million and building on our expansion of the number of medicines eligible for the 60-day scripts, which those opposite opposed, as well. Another measure which is really resonating with students and young people in my electorate is our policy to cut student debts by 20 per cent. You only need to stand at a prepoll to know how popular that was. It will ensure that about 23,000 people in Blair with a HECS debt will see an average reduction of $5,500 to their outstanding student loans. A key issue on the ground in Blair is housing supply and affordability. In my community, some people are finding it very hard to break into the housing market. Some experience mortgage stress, and others struggle to pay the rent from week to week. During the election, Labor announced that first home buyers will be able to get into the housing market with just a five per cent deposit. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced that this will start from 1 October 2025 instead of next year for all first home buyers, with no caps on places or income limits—in other words, it'll be demand driven. Property price caps will also be set high, in line with the average house prices. This is a real game changer, and it will bring the great Australian dream of owning a home back into reach for so many people. We're also going to invest $10 billion to build 100,000 homes that only first home buyers can buy. This is building on the fact that we've already helped more locals buy their own home, with more than 3,400 people in my community able to get into home ownership with the support of the Albanese government—the highest rate of take-up in the country. We're also supporting renters through a range of measures, including improving renters' rights, incentives for the private sector to build more long-term rentals, a 45 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance and delivering more social and affordable housing rentals. Another area that's made a big difference to families in Blair is support for child care. The government is taking the next step in building a universal early education and care system by replacing the much discredited and loathed current activity test with a guaranteed eligibility for three days a week of subsidised early education for children who need it. We've established a $1 billion Building Early Education Fund, allowing more centres to be built and expanded in areas of need. That'll help in electorates like mine, outer suburbs and regional areas. The Building Early Education Fund will deliver grants to providers, and the government will look at options for the Commonwealth to invest in owning and leasing out services. This will build on our earlier Cheaper Child Care reforms, which have helped 8,900 families in Blair, saving families $7,049 on average over the last two years. On the eve of this year's budget, the Albanese government signed a new $2.8 billion school funding agreement with the Queensland government, which will see more funding for local state schools in Blair over the next 10 years. I recall going to a number of schools after that agreement, particularly schools like Raceview State School and Bremer State High School, where that announcement was really well received. Finally, this budget invests in key road infrastructure that will improve congestion and safety in our fast-growing region. It locks in the $20 million in funding for the Brisbane Valley Highway safety upgrades, bringing the total Australian government commitment to $40 million. That's the amount that was asked for by the Somerset Regional Council. During the election campaign, I was delighted to announce $200 million to deliver a new Amberley interchange on the Cunningham Highway, drawing on previously allocated funding. I call on the Crisafulli government to match that funding; they didn't do it in their recent budget. In the last term, our budgets focused largely on inflation and the cost of living, but this term we know we also need to look at reforms to drive growth and productivity while ensuring inclusion and intergenerational equity. The best way to improve living standards over time is to make our economy more productive, to make it more resilient and to make sure our budget is more sustainable. These themes were all discussed at a recent Blair economic reform roundtable I hosted in Ipswich at the Ipswich Jets Leagues Club with representatives from local business, chambers of commerce, unions, government agencies, community groups and experts. The forum canvassed a wide range of issues from the need to fast-track more housing and road infrastructure to cutting red tape for local charities and cracking down on sham contracting and tax evasion. Locally we've seen strong economic and jobs growth in recent years, but we've got growing pains in a fast-growing region. We need to be investing in more housing, infrastructure, skills and services to support our high population growth. We want to keep securing good, well-paid jobs for locals now and into the future. That means backing local industries, tracking new investment and equipping people with the skills they need to succeed. I wrote to the Treasurer with a range of ideas coming out of the Blair roundtable and sent that feedback back to participants in the roundtable. This has been fed into the national economic reform roundtable, and I'm pleased to see the initiatives coming out of the national reform roundtable. The announcements last week to cut through red tape and delays in federal environmental laws are very welcome and precisely what a number of local participants said. Going forward, the economic reform roundtable will inform the next three budgets and beyond with clear and broad areas of consensus and common ground. It's very encouraging to see real appetite and ambition for change with some clear reform directions and a number of immediate actions, or low-hanging fruit, and some further work areas coming out of the event. In closing, we know the best way to boost living standards and modernise our economy is to make our economy more productive and resilient and to make our budget more sustainable, but we need to ensure that promotes fairness and tackles intergenerational equity so that no-one is left behind or held back. That's exactly what this budget, along with the associated appropriations bills discussed here today, will do. Our election commitments and our second-term agenda will achieve this. It backs my electorate of Blair and the strong record I have of delivering for our community, and it builds for the future. That's why this budget and the appropriations bills that we are discussing are important. I commend the appropriations bills to the House.
Housing Australia Investment Mandate Amendment (Delivering on Our 2025 Election Commitment) Direction 2025; Consideration | Documents | House debates
The member for Fadden—I am sorry. Fadden is an area on the northern Gold Coast. If the member for Fadden drives a bit south, he might see all the houses and units going up on the Gold...
The member for Fadden—I am sorry. Fadden is an area on the northern Gold Coast. If the member for Fadden drives a bit south, he might see all the houses and units going up on the Gold Coast. Too many people have been working very hard and trying to save, but the dream of homeownership is out of their reach. We know that. In the 1970s, it took about four times the average yearly wage to get a first home, but we're talking about 10 times now. People in my area do it tough. They don't usually have the bank of mum and dad. They're working-class and middle-class people who aspire to a better life for themselves and their kids. They're not from rich backgrounds. They have to do it tough, and they save as hard as they can. They're worried that they can't get a foothold in the market. They can't. They struggle. Our housing commitments of $43 billion contrast directly with the $5 billion commitment of those opposite in the campaign. I've got to admit, at Bundamba State Secondary College, I was better at humanities and anything you could write an essay on. But $43 billion is a lot more than $5 billion. Those opposite really couldn't bring themselves to support our policies. They might think they sound impressive now, but they didn't vote for them. In our first term, we made significant progress. They failed to acknowledge it. Over 180,000 Australians have now bought their first home with a five per cent deposit under the Home Guarantee Scheme. Since our government was elected, 3,416 people in my local community have been able to get into homeownership with the backing of our five per cent deposit scheme, which shows just how popular it's been in Ipswich and surrounds. In fact, earlier this year, the Home Guarantee Scheme trends and insights report said that one in three first home buyers took up the scheme in 2023-24 and that it helped a range of participants get into a home sooner. So we're expanding the scheme. For example, more than 50 per cent of eligible buyers were women and more than 50 per cent were under 30. I can distinctly recall, when standing at prepoll, people telling me, as they were coming in to the Ipswich south prepoll at Whitehill Church of Christ, that they were voting Labor because of our housing policies. That's the reason. I remember someone saying: 'Who's got the five per cent deposit? Shayne, I'm taking your how-to-vote card.' I remember debating on a number of occasions my LNP opponent who was running against me. They couldn't bring themselves to talk about housing. They had no policies. Their idea was a bit of help with the local council. But multiply $5 billion by eight and you still won't get to $43 billion. There's a constituent of mine, Taryn Compton, who has been able to get into a home in Redbank Plains, the biggest superb in Ipswich, thanks to the scheme. She's a young mother and she's praised the scheme publicly in the local media. She recommended the scheme and credited it with making homeownership a reality for her and her family. Previously living on the Gold Coast, she saw the light and came to Ipswich, by the way. She was looking for a place that was big enough for her and her five sons. She was able to buy a home in Ipswich after learning about the scheme from her mortgage broker. Taryn is very grateful for the assistance, and she believes the program makes homeownership possible for many people who wouldn't normally be able to buy a house. On top of this, half a million homes have been built, new housing approvals are up 30 per cent, and we've got 28,000 social and affordable homes in planning or construction. We know the key to addressing Australia's housing crisis is building more homes quickly, and that's why we're focusing on supply. Let's be clear, it's generally very hard for young people and others to get into homes. That's why, this week, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing announced that we're going to expand the five per cent deposit scheme, first announced in the lead-up to the federal election. It's going to be available to all first home buyers. We're going to deliver the election commitment three months earlier, starting from 1 October this year. From 1 October, every first home buyer will only need a five per cent deposit. It's going to take years off the time it takes for someone to save for a deposit. It's going to help them get into their homes much sooner. For the average first home buyer, this will cut the time needed to save a deposit to just a few years. They won't have to pay a single dollar in mortgage insurance. There are no income limits and no limits on places, and house price caps better reflect the cost of homes where they wish to live. The expanded scheme means a first home buyer in Brisbane can purchase a $1 million home with a $50,000 deposit. They could save up to 10 years off the time it takes for them to get their deposit. They can save about $42,000 in mortgage insurance and they could pay up to $350,000 towards their own loan instead of paying rent. It's a real game-changer for young people and a vote-changer—those who are stuck in the corner opposite don't realise that. All of us who speak to young people in our communities hear about the fact that the 20 per cent deposit is the main barrier for the next generation in getting access to homeownership. The expansion of this five per cent scheme will change lives. This will mean tens of thousands of additional Australians will get security, stability and the joy that you have when you buy your first home. I know it was the case for my wife and I when we bought our first home, in Pine Street in Flinders View. We've lived in that suburb in a number of different homes ever since we've been married. We could have done with that support. We had to save really hard, and we sure made sacrifices to get there. We're tackling housing affordability on every single front. Supply is critical. We're delivering Australia's biggest ever boost to supply, notwithstanding what those opposite may say—'Having eyes, do you not see?' Half a million homes have already been built and new housing approvals are up 30 per cent. We've got 28,000 social and affordable homes in planning or construction today. There is a fundamental difference between the Labor Party, which believes in social and affordable houses, and the coalition. There are the Help to Buy and Home Guarantee schemes. Those opposite wouldn't support the Home Guarantee Scheme. They voted against Help to Buy. Fundamentally, the Liberal and National parties do not believe that the federal government has a role in social and affordability housing. Their idea is class conflict and class warfare. They accuse us of this all the time. When it comes to housing, their views are just the same as their views on industrial relations—always siding with the rich, never siding with the poor; never siding with the middle class, always siding with the billionaires.
I'm pleased to speak on this ministerial statement and the motion to take note of the Albanese government's announcement of five per cent deposits for all first home buyers. I listened to the...
I'm pleased to speak on this ministerial statement and the motion to take note of the Albanese government's announcement of five per cent deposits for all first home buyers. I listened to the previous speaker. He said our housing policies sounded impressive. They were so impressive, he couldn't bring himself to vote for any of them. That's how impressive they were. They couldn't find a housing bill that we brought into the House that they wanted to support. I'm just a bit bewildered by the previous speaker because he represents a Gold Coast seat in South-East Queensland; I represent a seat based around Ipswich, and we've been growing in population by at least 10,000 every year for the last five or six years. The Gold Coast has about 753,000 people living in it. In 2022, it had 722,000 people living in it, so it's grown by about 30,000 in that period of time. He should drive along Pacific Highway, go down past Pacific Fair and drive his way down the Gold Coast—I think he represents a seat on the northern Gold Coast. If he goes around Palm Beach, he'll see housing and unit constructions everywhere on the Gold Coast. He must be blind. He sort of reminds me of Russell Hinze, the former National Party cabinet minister, who couldn't see any brothels or casinos through Fortitude Valley during the 'moonlight state'. I don't know where the member for Caldwell has been. The Gold Coast is booming, and housing construction's going up everywhere. This particular motion is all about housing construction. If he comes to my electorate, he'll see the Greater Springfield area—the member for Oxley also represents Springfield; we share it—and I've got Ripley Valley. Houses are going up everywhere in these areas. The housing problems we've got in this country are not new, but the member for Caldwell must have been blind for a long time and mustn't be looking around anywhere. He must be the Russell Hinze of the LNP in Queensland, because he can't see houses anywhere. It's very challenging, we know, for Australians to find the opportunity to get into a first home, and that's what we've got in an area like the Ripley Valley, where, of course, the average age is about 26.
Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm very pleased speak on the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025. I think that one of the best campaigns I have seen in relation to industrial relations in the last decade was the...
I'm very pleased speak on the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025. I think that one of the best campaigns I have seen in relation to industrial relations in the last decade was the campaign done by the SDA, the Shoppies union, which was called No One Deserves A Serve. In fact, this bill could be called the 'No-one Deserves a Serve Bill' because it relates not to food and retail, which the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association has coverage of, but to public servants and those who interact with the public service. That campaign I referred to found that 87 per cent of people who worked in that industry had suffered verbal abuse, while 76 per cent received verbal abuse on a regular basis, monthly, weekly or daily. In other results, 12.5 per cent were victims of personal violence, nine per cent were spat on, 10 per cent had suffered online abuse, 17 per cent had suffered abuse of a sexual nature and 24 per cent had suffered abuse, harassment or violence referencing their race, ethnicity or cultural background. There were 6,000 people who were surveyed. That is an extraordinary degree of abuse that people who work in food and retail suffer from every day. This particular legislation doesn't deal with them, but it does deal with those who serve our public and are known as public servants. Every Australian, whether working in retail, hospitality or the food industry, deserves to be safe at work. In recent years, Commonwealth workers have increasingly been subject to the kind of violence and abuse that I referred to that the SDA ran campaigns against for their members. They are subject to acts of violence and aggression from the public. This is simply unacceptable, and that's why the Albanese Labor government is introducing the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2025. We want to make sure that Commonwealth workplaces are safer for workers and the Australian community. Now, we can do this by building arrangements and structural design. I saw that just last week during a visit to the Services Australia Ipswich office—one of the busiest in Queensland. Changes had been made to entrances and exits, there were protective screens and walls, safety procedures had been put in place and there were two full-time security guards every day. But that's not enough, sadly. This legislation will strengthen the Commonwealth's ability to protect Commonwealth employees, protecting those on the frontline, through the creation of an enforceable workplace protection order. This is similar to the kind of legislation that operates at a state level. Violence and aggression have a devastating impact on frontline workers and their families, so it's not just about the individuals who work for our public but their families as well. In response to the horrific stabbing of an Airport West Services Australia officer, Joeanne Cassar, in May 2023—a devastating reminder of what we need to do to protect more workers—the former minister for government services and the NDIS, the former member for Maribyrnong, commissioned a review into the safety of frontline Public Service workers, the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review, conducted by the former chief commissioner of Victoria Police, Mr Graham Ashton. Forty-four recommendations were made, and we committed to implementing every recommendation of the Ashton review. The frontline workers who will be covered are those who help the community with essential government services, like Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office, passport offices, airports and the Australian Electoral Commission. These people staff service centres and call centres across Australia. Unfortunately, they continue to face the increasing risk of violence from members of the public. It's been said before that Services Australia staff experienced 1,692 serious incidents between 2023 and 2024. The bill responds to the unacceptable situation and implements recommendation No. 17 of the Ashton review. That recommendation states: The current ACT Workplace Protection Order provisions should be adopted for use by the Commonwealth as a staff protection mechanism nationwide. It establishes a framework that authorises a person within the Commonwealth entity—that's not necessarily an individual—to apply for a state or territory magistrate court or local court, the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court to issue what will be known as a 'Commonwealth WPO' in order to protect a Commonwealth worker or workplace from threats of harm and actual harm. It means that we establish a new act of parliament, the Commonwealth Workplace Protections Orders Act, and a new scheme. The bill's crucial to mitigating some of the serious risk of harm. Ultimately, a WPO aims to prevent future violence from happening. The bill is about making workplaces safer for the public who visit them to gain access to critical government benefits and services. It provides legal protections for workplaces and workers. It will be available to most Commonwealth workplaces and extend to anywhere a Commonwealth worker is conducting official Commonwealth work. Commonwealth workplaces include those pop-up offices we see at service centres and shopping centres, Commonwealth service-delivery vehicles and a Commonwealth worker's residence when working from home, which is so critical because so many people work from home. This is very important in an electorate like mine because we have pop-up services in country towns in the Somerset region from time to time. This bill will cover those workers who do that kind of work. The bill enables an authorised person to apply to the court, as I said. The definition of 'personal violence' is designed to include acts of violence, harassment, intimidation, threats of harm and other harmful non-physical violence such as abuse that is verbal, over the phone or via email. This definition is akin to the definition of 'domestic and family violence' in the Peace and Good Behaviour Act at the state and territory level, so there's a history of jurisprudence. I would hope and expect courts will take note of precedence and prior cases in this area in terms of making a decision. On application, a Commonwealth state or territory court could make an interim or a final WPO. Under urgent circumstances, an urgent protection order can be made. In order to issue a WPO, a court would need to be satisfied that the respondent has engaged in personal violence in relation to Commonwealth workers or individuals in their Commonwealth workplace, there's a real risk that the respondent will engage in further personal violence if an order is not made, and the order is necessary or desirable. It's so similar to the kinds of things that I used to do when I was practising as a family lawyer many years ago. I've seen many of these types of cases, so I'm very pleased to see this type of legislation applying to Commonwealth workplaces and Commonwealth workers. In this context, 'Commonwealth worker' covers employees of Commonwealth entities—which is critical, because not everyone works for a Commonwealth department—under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, including Services Australia, the Australian Taxation Office, Veterans' Affairs, Australia Post and ministerial and electorate offices. It is absolutely vital that we protect our staff who work in electorate offices and who go out with us each and every day. They serve the public, just as people in Medicare offices and Services Australia do. No person in this chamber could do their work without the wonderful staff working for them. I thank them each and every day for what they do, what they have to put up with—the number of phone calls they get where people are angry and disappointed or frustrated, and the number of times that people ring up and have got suicidal ideation or thoughts and challenges. The breadth of the legislation and ministerial responsibility that our staff deal with each and every day—and they themselves are captured and covered by this legislation. I'm so very pleased that's the case. Any court will have to consider the personal circumstances of a respondent when determining the conditions attached to the order, but they do conditions to protect, and there is a great deal of breadth in those conditions. I saw that personally when I was practising as a lawyer for nearly a quarter of a century, before coming here. I saw the kinds of orders and the breadth of the orders that courts make. It will allow either party, for example, when that term or period of time is over or, indeed, when the risk is not there, to make an application to vary or revoke that order, if it's needed in the circumstances. There can be additional conditions in terms of the length of the time. We don't expect that a final WPO will exceed two years, and it can't be made against a person under 14 years of age. This bill addresses a legislative gap in most state and territory protection schemes which doesn't cover public service. It will enhance the personal privacy of Commonwealth workers, and it's important in terms of strengthening their workplace health and safety protections. Last week, I had an opportunity to visit the newly transformed Ipswich service centre for Services Australia. We learnt much more about the enhanced security arrangements they put in place in response to the Ashton review. It was an opportunity to hear how they have sought to modernise their services by introducing new and better ways to service customers and make it easier for customers to access support and, therefore, reduce the frustration. Some of the innovations at the centre include updated self-service facilities and kiosks; increased support and training for customers to access digital services, including digital coaching appointments and bring-your-own-device options; and referrals to specialists and other government services. I want to thank services centre manager Jenny and her staff, and all the Services Australia workers for their fantastic work, particularly for their efforts to slash the backlog of Centrelink and Medicare claims in recent years. It was a great opportunity to meet with some of the new recruits who are part of the government's staffing boost of 3,000 frontline service workers across the country, hired to process critical claims and get the waiting times down. This is such important work, and it will help people with more financial services and support to deal with the cost-of-living pressures that they're under. These workers deserve a safe and secure environment free from threats of harm. They do not deserve a serve at work. I support this legislation; it's absolutely vital. I want to thank the Minister for Home Affairs for bringing forward this bill. I spoke on this bill previously, in the previous parliament. It lapsed with the proroguing of parliament, but I am pleased that the Minister for Home Affairs has brought forward this bill and pleased for the support last term from the former minister for government services and former attorney-general for the original legislation reforms. I thank everyone who has contributed to its development through the consultation process. I thank the CPSU, the union covering Commonwealth public servants, for their support, and all the other stakeholders who were consulted in the development of this legislation. I call on the parliament to do the right thing and support these critical measures. They will improve workplace safety for frontline Commonwealth workers and make our Commonwealth workplaces safe for all Australians who use them. I commend the bill to the House.
Veterans Hubs | Constituency Statements | House debates
On 12 August I was delighted to announce a location for the new Ipswich veterans and families hub in my electorate together with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence personnel. Operated...
On 12 August I was delighted to announce a location for the new Ipswich veterans and families hub in my electorate together with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence personnel. Operated by RSL Queensland, the new hub will be co-located with Mates4Mates at 260 Brisbane Street, West Ipswich. This follows Labor's commitment in the 2022 federal election to deliver a much-needed veterans and families hub in Ipswich. It has taken RSL Queensland a long time to decide upon and acquire a site, but they got there in the end. It's important because we have one of the biggest bases in the country—in fact, RAAF Base Amberley is the biggest air force base in the country. We've got more than 10,000 veterans and families living in Ipswich and the surrounding areas, and more than 5,000 ADF personnel posted to RAAF Base Amberley, including army units. I'm very proud that the Albanese Labor government is delivering upon my commitment to establish this veterans hub—even more so because the federal Liberal and National Parties previously promised a veterans hub for Ipswich in the 2026 federal election, only to renege upon the commitment after having won the election. They went on to drop the commitment from their 2019 and 2022 election platforms. Then the Morrison government announced funding for a veterans wellbeing centre in South-East Queensland but still failed to deliver one in Ipswich. So it took Labor's commitment at the 2022 election to finally secure this funding and this facility for my community. It's wonderful to see the significant progress made with this project, with the permanent location now locked in and co-located at the Mates4Mates Ipswich Centre, in West Ipswich, and there's the expectation that GO2 Health will operate from this facility as well. RSL Queensland and Mates4Mates have a proven track record when it comes to supporting the veterans community in South-East Queensland, so I am pleased that RSL Queensland was the successful applicant for the funding. They've got the runs on the board to make this happen. They've operated other centres around Brisbane, with Mates4Mates running several successful hubs across the country. This is why the Albanese Labor government awarded them a $5.4 million grant to lead the development of the hub in the first place, and it's why I'm confident they'll deliver an outstanding facility where veterans and defence personnel and their families will have access to a wide range of health and wellbeing services close to home when and where they need it. Importantly, the Ipswich hub will provide tailored mental health services and wellbeing services, in keeping with our government's strong commitment in responding to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, something that Labor, from opposition, called upon the government to do. That's why having this hub close to where people live is so important. It's another sign that the Albanese Labor government is backing our veterans community in the Ipswich and Somerset regions. I'm looking forward to working with RSL Queensland and seeing this facility opened officially.
Blair Electorate: Economy | Adjournment | House debates
Earlier this month, I was delighted to host a Blair economic reform roundtable at Jets Leagues Club in Ipswich to workshop ideas on how to boost productivity and economic resilience in the...
Earlier this month, I was delighted to host a Blair economic reform roundtable at Jets Leagues Club in Ipswich to workshop ideas on how to boost productivity and economic resilience in the region. The event brought together around 30 local business, union, community and government representatives as well as experts to discuss shared economic challenges and opportunities in Ipswich, the Somerset region and surrounds. It canvassed a wide range of issues: the value of volunteering, cutting red tape for local charities, cracking down on tax evasion and sham contracting, the importance affordable insurance and disaster resilience, and the economic sustainability of our local area. We had a terrific video from the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, who set out the Albanese government's broader growth and productivity agenda, and renowned seniors advocate, philanthropist and author Everald Compton entertained us with an engaging talk about the value of intergenerational partnerships and tapping into the human capital of older Australians. After the well-received forum, I wrote to the Treasurer with the key outcomes to feed into the national economic reform roundtable held here in Canberra last week. We've seen that this has already delivered a number of initiatives that participants at my roundtable were calling for, and that's very pleasing. Part of the motivation for holding a local roundtable was that we had seen strong local economic and jobs growth in recent years powered by a number of major developments, such as the new Suntory drink manufacturing plant at Swanbank and the Rheinmetall military vehicle facility at Redbank, and by big employers like JBS meat processing at Dinmore and Kilcoy Global Foods at Kilcoy. This is all very welcome, but we want to keep good, secure, well-paid jobs for locals now and into the future. This means continuing to back local industry, to attract new investment and to build the skills that people need to succeed. Ipswich is growing very rapidly. At the same time our region is experiencing growth pains. We need to invest more in housing, infrastructure and skills to meet the needs of a booming population. We have had to contend with a number of challenges in recent years. These have included increased congestion on the roads, housing affordability, floods, workforce shortages and an ageing population. You may have heard the Treasurer talking a bit about the Abundance agenda lately. It's based on a recent book, and it's really informed the government's thinking about productivity. In a nutshell, it means that a rich society like ours should be able to meet people's basic needs in terms of land, housing, education, infrastructure et cetera, but in recent years some institutional barriers have arisen which makes it challenging. So we need institutional reform to address this and improve productivity. In my electorate, an example of that are the federal environmental laws under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act, which was well intentioned but neither protects the environment—for example, threatened species like koala—nor facilitates good housing development, and it exacerbates road congestion. At the forum, we heard that some housing developments in the greater Springfield and Ripley areas were held up for years by the so-called green tape of EPBC Act approvals, and the National Construction Code has also been increasing the costs. So it's wonderful to see the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Minister for Housing announce this week that the government's taking decisive action to cut through red tape and delays in approvals that are holding up construction of more homes and other projects. The government will work with the states and territories for further improvements, such as pausing the changes to the National Construction Code. While this is underway, we're going to streamline that code in consultation with stakeholders, and we're also going to make changes to fast track assessments for more than 26,000 homes currently under the EPBC Act consideration and speed up those new applications in terms of assessment. Ultimately, we want to see the local economy work for local people, and we want people to be able to raise a family, enjoy a good quality of life and live where they need to live. That's what the economic roundtable in Blair showed. It was a very productive exercise, if you excuse the pun, but it was good to see local voices being heard loud and clear and feeding into that national conversation on economic growth and living standards. I want to thank everyone who attended and contributed with good will and amity. It was fantastic to see businesses and unions working together. At its core, productivity is about people, fairness and intergenerational equity. It's about delivering better, secure, well-paid jobs, affordable housing and better infrastructure and making sure no-one's left behind. House adjourned at 20:00
Blair Electorate: Community Grants | Constituency Statements | House debates
I'm delighted to report the Albanese Labor government is delivering around $5.8 million over five years for six organisations to provide emergency and food relief for struggling families and...
I'm delighted to report the Albanese Labor government is delivering around $5.8 million over five years for six organisations to provide emergency and food relief for struggling families and individuals in my electorate, including terrific local community organisations like Ipswich Assist, Leichhardt One Mile Community Centre and Riverview Community Centre, as well as bigger charities like Vinnies. We are also providing $2.1 million over five years to three organisations which are helping people in Ipswich to access financial counselling, including people facing financial hardship due to gambling: the Salvos, Each Ipswich and Women's Legal Service Queensland. I know many people in my electorate are doing it tough, and services like this are seeing a big increase in requests for assistance. That's why this funding will help families and individuals in Ipswich who may be facing hard choices, like a choice between buying new school shoes and doing a grocery shop, or between keeping the lights on and paying their phone bills. I visited one of the funding recipients, local charity Ipswich Assist, before the election to see firsthand their emergency relief work. They provide year-round assistance to people, including basic food staples, utility bills, rent assistance, pharmacy support and local op shop referrals. Just the other week, I dropped in on another grant recipient, the Salvos' Moneycare Ipswich financial counselling service, who are doing a fantastic job supporting locals with debts, gambling problems and other financial issues and helping people deal with their cost-of-living issues. Combined with Labor's tax cuts, increased wages, cheaper medicines, cuts to student debt, increases in Commonwealth rent assistance and energy bill relief, this boost to emergency and food relief and financial wellbeing support is just another way the Albanese government is helping to address the cost-of-living challenge for people in my community and making sure no-one's left behind. I want to congratulate the 14 community groups and sporting clubs who've received $100,000 in funding in total in the latest round of the government's Stronger Communities Program. Charities, including sporting clubs, got this funding, with individual grants ranging from $3,204 to $10,000. Local organisations that are successful recipients include Ipswich Hospice, with $10,000 to concrete brick paver paths; Ipswich Kindergarten in Milford Street, where I went to kindy, which received $10,000 to replace ageing shade sails; North Ipswich Bowls Club in Ipswich, which received $10,000 for energy efficiency and LED lighting; the Vedanta Centre's Maa Sarada soup kitchen in the Greater Springfield area, which received a $10,000 grant; and the Rosewood & District Community Kindergarten in Rosewood, which received $10,000 for new upgraded electrical appliances and equipment. Money also went to the Somerset region for local community organisations.