Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors are vital for the Tasmanian economy, no more so than in my sprawling electorate of Lyons. Agriculture production contributes more than $2.1 billion annually to the Tasmanian economy, and we well and truly punch above our weight, with more than 2,200 farms, many of them small, family farms that have worked the land for generations. Our highest-value industries are dairy, at $490 million; cattle, at $416 million; and vegetables, at $330 million. Almost 9,000 Tasmanians are directly employed in agriculture.

Now, while I've spoken about it many times, I am extremely proud of the forestry industry in my electorate. Across the state we have 76 sawmills, which means jobs for almost 2½ thousand Tasmanians, and many of those are in my electorate. Minister Watt has visited Lyons many times in the year since the last election. Together we've been to dairy farms, sawmills and the Sea Forest seaweed farm at Triabunna.

Most recently, the minister joined me at a very wet Agfest, a three-day festival and the most important event on the agriculture sector's calendar in Tasmania. I know you, Deputy Speaker Archer, will know how wet it was on one of those days as well. At Agfest the minister and I covered the field, talking to foresters, honey producers, dairy farmers and the peak farm group, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, about the issues that concern them. Like the rest of the nation, strong biosecurity is critical for Tasmania, and I am proud that a Labor government is delivering the long-term, sustainable funding that we need for this.

I'm also proud to have been with Minister Watt at the Western Junction Sawmill near Launceston when he announced $108 million for timber manufacturing companies across the country to encourage more value-adding and innovation in the industry. It was a real privilege to be standing there with the workers at the Western Junction Sawmill as we announced this funding. All those guys, and women, in their high-vis are doing really important work for the timber-processing sector in our state. More than $15 million of the $108 million is going to businesses across Tasmania, including almost $2 million to Western Junction Sawmill. We know that the future of the timber industry in Australia is in the value-adding sector—in cross-laminates and getting the most value that we can out of the trees that we cut down.

Timber is a renewable resource. You cut down a tree, you replant it and you harvest it in the years ahead. It's renewable. It's great for the environment and it's certainly great for the regions. The Albanese Labor government acts to protect and grow the agricultural sector across all its many facets, and that's critical for trade, economic resilience and jobs in my home state of Tasmania. So my question to the minister is: can the minister outline how new investments in the budget demonstrate the government's commitment to a strong and resilient agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector?

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Economic and demographic specialists REMPLAN say the Wimmera region, in my electorate of Mallee, has a gross regional product of $3.9 billion, almost a quarter of which comes from agriculture, forestry and fishing. In REMPLAN's Mildura region, covering the Sunraysia part of my Mallee electorate, $3.8 billion is the contribution to the GRP and 13 per cent of output is from agriculture. The Loddon region of Mallee has $464 million in GRP and 44 per cent of the total output comes from agriculture. In the Swan Hill region $1.6 billion is contributed to GRP and 21 per cent of their output is from agriculture. I could go on.

Agriculture is in the top three in all of those regions of Mallee and underpins many other regions in my electorate, so you can see why, as the member for Mallee, I have many questions about agriculture in this budget, and I have to start with the blindside attack on our farmers—namely, the new food tax, the biosecurity protection levy. The coalition government never considered taxing farmers to build a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. Our approach was to target those who created the biosecurity risk: the importers. The independent Craik biosecurity review recommended an importer container levy, and that's what we were working towards, so why has this government ignored the independent advice and whacked our farmers with a $153 million price tag instead? I would like an answer to that. That $153 million is equivalent to 10 per cent of what is raised from agricultural levies at present. The minister told Senate estimates he felt 10 per cent was 'a fair contribution to make'. Did the minister pluck that figure out of thin air? Were other levels modelled?

Does the minister think it fair that farmers who already contribute to bodies like Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia for biosecurity will have to pay twice for biosecurity through this new levy? And, let's remember, it's from imports, not from their own products. Is it fair that livestock producers, such as cattle producers, who already contribute to be National Livestock Identification System—sheep and goat producers soon will too—will also have to contribute to this new tax? If an outbreak such as, God forbid, foot-and-mouth disease gets in from a country like Indonesia, will farmers be exempt from contributing to the response action in recognition of their contribution under the levy? These are all questions the minister should answer.

Has the government modelled whether voluntary levy support in farming commodity groups would collapse due to the mandatory biosecurity levy? Can the government guarantee that not one cent will end up in general revenue to pay for pet projects to help them win seats in the cities? Can they guarantee every cent will be applied for biosecurity purposes? What legislative or transparency mechanism, which we know this government loves, will be used to ensure that the hypothecation—let's just say the hypothetical—actually occurs.

I want to turn to something close to home for me as the member for Mallee because I know first-hand how beneficial the Pacific labour mobility scheme has been for our horticultural industry. The Labor government asked, 'How high?' when their union masters said, 'Jump,' and imposed a 30-hour-per-week requirement on every week of the year. It is seasonal work, for goodness sake. Oranges don't pace themselves to suit the workforce. The rain does not fall at a rate of two millimetres a day. I mean, really! Has the government modelled the impact of the 30-hour-a-week change on the agricultural workforce? I project that a great many farmers who would have hired workers simply won't hire them in weeks when the crops aren't ready, or they might have to force them to work outdoors in a heatwave week when a cooler week is forecast the following week. Work health and safety?

The National Food Supply Chain Alliance said in October that Australia at that stage was 172,000 workers short from paddock to plate. Can Labor say honestly that this 30-hours-a-week policy for PALM workers will help to reduce the worker shortage? As at 30 April there were 38,180 PALM workers in Australia, less than a fifth of what was actually needed to fill that paddock-to-plate shortage. What has the government modelled that will actually increase PALM participation rates when the policy comes into effect? The National Farmers Federation's Horticulture Council says the PALM— (Time expired)

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our magnificent island continent is both a blessing and a challenge when it comes to biosecurity, and biosecurity is pivotal. Our flora and fauna are often decimated, and our agricultural and farming industries must be free from exotic pests, weeds and diseases. Our communities must be kept safe, and, all importantly, our economy relies on it. In my electorate of Paterson more than 3½ thousand workers have direct employment through agriculture. There are over 1,000 farms in the Hunter that depend on strong biosecurity to survive and prosper. We take it very seriously because $400 million worth of agricultural production every year is attributed to the Hunter region through cattle, poultry, dairy and, of course, our magnificent wine industry. It is so important, and that is why I am indeed very privileged and honoured to be the chair of the agriculture committee in this place. I am also involved with Parliamentary Friends of Primary Producers as the co-chair and am co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Soil and the Parliamentary Friends of Viticulture. I also meet regularly with a range of organisations to make sure that I am right across the brief when it comes to agriculture and biosecurity.

I focus on these industries to ensure that my electorate has someone who is able to represent the community's interests effectively, and that is why I really sincerely welcome the $1 billion—with a B—investment in biosecurity that my friend and colleague Minister Murray Watt delivered in the May budget. It is absolutely essential that we stay on top of biosecurity, and for the first time an Australian government has actually locked in permanent, secure and sustainable funding for our critical biosecurity infrastructure. I hear from my colleagues across the aisle that in previous years the coalition was 'gonna, shoulda and woulda' in doing all these things, but the reality is that they didn't do anything. Not once did the Nationals or the member for New England or Senator Bridget McKenzie secure such important funding and such a large pool of funding as the funding that Minister Watt has been able to secure. In fact, they watched as their Liberal colleagues cut biosecurity funding by more than $100 million a year, but they have the temerity to come into this place and say, 'Oh, what are you doing having a levy on biosecurity?' Farmers in Australia I have spoken to have welcomed the levy because they know it is so important to their businesses and our economy.

I am proud to be a member of the Albanese government, which is delivering on its election commitments to provide long-term, sustainable funding for biosecurity. And, while we are talking about biosecurity, it is so important to actually deliver that—not just talk about it, but make sure it happens on the ground, as we demonstrated as soon as we took government. We did have that threat of risk coming in from abroad, with things like lumpy skin disease. We got the mats rolled out at the airport. We did the job. We delivered biosecurity that kept this nation safe and kept our farms functioning as they should.

I am very proud to be part of a government that also delivers for my community things like an MRI licence at the new, local Maitland Hospital. We're fast-tracking the works on the M1, and I thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, who joins us today in the chamber, for that. This is a government that delivers. We don't just promise; we get things done, and that's where the rubber hits the road for our Australian agricultural industry.

I want to make Australia better for the people of my electorate. Biosecurity might not sound very sexy, but it's very much on the minds of people in my community. Every single person in my electorate—in fact, in the country—can suffer grave consequences, both financially and through food security, if our import biosecurity measures fail us. Minister Watt has found a long-term solution to ensure that significant biosecurity risks are kept to a minimum. I welcome an update from the minister on how the budget delivers on Labor's election commitment to deliver long-term, sustainable funding for biosecurity to keep all Australians safe and, most importantly and pivotally, to keep our agricultural industry not only growing but also thriving.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to acknowledge the presence of Minister King here today, obviously representing Minister Watt who, as a senator, doesn't get to sit here. But I assume that Minister Watt has staff here to listen and take note of some of the questions that I'm about to put to the government.

Firstly, farmers and people in the agriculture sector don't expect a lot from Labor governments, I've got to say, but the 2023 budget was a shocker by the standards that we've come to expect. At the national level, the $153 million import levy is a major hit to farming and agricultural communities across the board. The member for Mallee has already addressed and discussed that; hopefully, we'll get a response from the government to her comments. My focus today is on my state of Western Australia and the agriculture sector which contributes, across Western Australia, some $15 billion of the $83 billion agricultural output across the country, which is significant. We're punching well above our weight. With 10 per cent of the population, we have close to 25 per cent of the agricultural output of this nation. But it's in serious trouble, and that trouble is about to get significantly worse for the agricultural producers across my electorate.

One of the headline figures that I picked up in the budget on budget night was $5.6 million committed over two years for the government's independent panel to undertake an assessment and consultation process for the phase-out of live sheep exports. Call it a phase-out if you like, but this is the destruction of a very significant industry across my electorate and across Western Australia more broadly. My question is: with the government committing millions of dollars in the budget to push ahead with the destruction of live sheep export through our entire agriculture sector, is the government aware of the impact that this is going to have on our producers, and what modelling has the government done to assess that impact? I would appreciate the minister writing down that question. Hopefully, she'll come back to me with an answer at the end of this presentation. If the decision proceeds, the exodus of sheep producers from farming businesses in WA will lead to lower employment, lower economic growth in rural communities and a collapse of confidence. An article from the National Tribune said:

Data released today from Rabobank shows that while confidence edged higher nationally—

In the agriculture sector—

WA bucked the trend recording a further dip into negative territory.

The same survey showed overall confidence in the sheep industry is down from last quarter, and there was an 8% jump in the number of producers nervous about government policies and intervention.

Just last week, data from Australian Wool Innovation and Meat & Livestock Australia showed a staggering 90 point drop in sentiment among WA sheep producers—making that the only state to have a negative outlook for the coming 12 months.

NFF President Fiona Simson said the results should be a wake-up call to the Government and prompt a rethink of its activist-led live sheep export ban.

"Confidence among WA sheep producers is through the floor. It's no surprise given the cloud of uncertainty Canberra has blown their way."

What is the government going to implement and put in place to support Western Australian producers?

This consultation panel has been travelling around Australia. They were met with outrage when they tried to sneak into WA and hold meetings with hand picked groups that I think they felt would give them support. The independent panel chairman, Phillip Glyde, has publicly admitted that they got it wrong. He conceded that the phaseout consultation meetings in regional WA had been rushed. On top of that, he also confirmed that shutting down the live sheep trade export industry will hurt farmers. Does the government agree with Mr Glyde's assessment and, if not, why not?

Finally, given the magnitude of this decision, will the government confirm if the minister for agriculture, Senator Watt, will attend, or commit to attend, at least one consultation meeting to speak directly with impacted farmers, community members and stakeholders? I make the offer here today to facilitate that meeting for Mr Watt to come to Western Australia— (Time expired)

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Growing up on a dairy farm, and through the decades, it's fair to say that I've seen a lot of change and I've seen local farmers adapt to much change over this time. There have been huge hurdles over recent years on the New South Wales South Coast: disaster after disaster, drought, the Black Summer bushfires, and multiple floods and storms. Every natural disaster hurdle has been thrown at our farmers, but one of the things that has really struck me is how much farmers have modernised and adapted to the times. In my conversations with farmers it's been clear how far ahead of government they are in recognising the impact of our changing climate and the need to adapt for the future.

Take dairy farmer Rob from Narrawilly Farm and Croobyar Farm at Milton, which has been a dairy farm for more than 160 years. Over the past 30 years, farmer Rob has been busy regenerating the land by planting more than 1,000 trees each year, rehabilitating rainforest and creating wetland areas. Farmer Rob says:

We are custodians for a short period of time and I want to leave the farm in a better condition than how I received it.

Farmer Rob is not alone. We know that 94 per cent of farmers are actively undertaking natural resource management, including tree planting, protecting waterways and destocking during dry periods to maintain ground cover.

Further north in Kiama, one cannot help but be struck by the story of the Pines, established as a dairy farm in 1854. The Pines is a family-run microdairy run by Kel and Mahlah Grey. They manage all factors of farming themselves using organic, biodynamic, holistic and regenerative farming methods. Using minimal processing with their small and lovingly cared for herd, the Pines make a range of regenerative dairy products, including award-winning cheeses named after each cow, yoghurt, milk and a range of artisan gelato. The Pines places huge emphasis on sustainability and enhancing the precious ecosystem. The wellbeing of animals and land is at the forefront of everything, and regenerative farming practices ensure nothing from the farm goes to waste.

Yes, farming has changed, but so too have the opportunities from adapting to climate change. These farmers and many like them are ahead of the game because of the decade where we had a government that did not care about climate change, did nothing to support farmers to adapt and stuck their heads in the sand about what this means for the future.

Agriculture is hugely important in Gilmore. Well over $140 million worth of agricultural production occurs across the Gilmore region each year, mainly from our renowned dairy and cattle industries. More than 1,200 workers are directly employed in the agricultural sector, and they depend on a secure and prosperous sector for their livelihoods. I welcome the $302 million investment in sustainable agriculture that the Albanese Labor government is delivering through the May budget. It's great to see that the government is also rebuilding the climate capability of ABARES, which was neglected by the former government for 10 years. Our farmers increasingly depend on their sustainability credentials to be able to access valuable overseas markets, including through free trade agreements. Sustainability credentials demonstrate trust in them as providers of high-quality, safe and sustainable food and fibre products.

My questions to the minister are: Can the minister explain why it is important for the government to work with industry to manage these challenges by delivering more sustainable and climate-smart agriculture and to support the transition to net zero emissions? Can the minister also provide an update on the announcement in the budget to provide $302 million through the Natural Heritage Trust for new sustainable agriculture programs?

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to participate in this very important consideration in detail debate for agriculture, fisheries and forestry. I'll be focusing specifically on fisheries and forestry in the questions that I pose here for the government.

Firstly, in relation to the biosecurity tax: As far as the new biosecurity tax announced in the budget applies to the forestry industry, will it remain at a fixed rate from year to year, or will it change based on the level of production? If it does remain fixed, is there any room for variations to that in exceptional circumstances—say, in the case of someone who is affected by an unforeseen development, like a natural disaster, for example, that lowers the level of their production in a year through no fault at all of their own?

With respect to the use of gillnets: How has the government calculated that there will be a $160 million cost to the budget as a result of the minister's recent decision to outlaw the use of gillnets in parts of Queensland? What specific consultations did the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or her staff undertake with fishers prior to this decision, and with what individuals and organisations, and on what dates in each case? What has the government calculated will be the extent of the financial impacts as a result of the environment minister's gillnets decision, not only to the fishing industry itself but also more widely, and, in particular, across the state of Queensland? And, as a part of that, what is the government's response, specifically, to the comments made by Andrew Tobin last week? As I hope the minister might know, Andrew Tobin is a senior research fellow at the Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, as well as a director at Tobin Fish. He told the ABC on 9 June that the price of fish will, in his words, go 'through the roof' as a consequence of the minister's gillnets decision. Specifically, Mr Tobin said that the decision is:

… going to have a huge impact and not just on fish and chip shops; it's all the businesses including restaurants up and down the east coast.

And he said that:

It will end up being a handful of fishermen selling product to a very high-end market and the price—

of fish, that is—

will go through the roof.

On page 100 of Portfolio Budget Statements paper No.1.1, it says that in 2023-24 the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, or AFMA for short, using its acronym, will be 'gaining efficiencies' in 'business processes'. At whose instigation are those efficiencies being pursued? And what will these efficiencies be, specifically?

Also, on page 100 of the PBS, it says that in 2023-24 AFMA will be 'investing in different science to meet the demands of climate change'. On or around what date was this priority identified as something that needed to be pursued? Who made the decision to invest in this different science? What is this different science exactly, and what will be the full cost that will be accrued because of the pursuit of such different work? I very much look forward to hearing the minister's response to these very important questions—and it's not only the opposition that is interested in hearing these answered but also, indeed, the industry and the economy at large—especially with respect to some of those questions relating to Queensland and the Queensland economy.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has always recognised the important contribution from our agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors, particularly in regional Australia. Total production this year is forecast to be more than $90 billion. We are well on the way to meeting the industry's target of $100 billion of annual production by 2030. Trade in agriculture, fisheries and forestry products is critical for our continued economic development as a nation. This year alone, Australia is expected to earn $82 billion in export income from trade in food and fibre. This underpins almost 240,000 direct jobs in agriculture Australia-wide, most of which are in our regional, rural and remote areas, including in my electorate of Hawke.

This May budget invests a record $1.5 billion to protect and grow our booming agricultural industries. Unlike the former Liberal government, we aren't just talking about the importance of the regions; we are backing them in—putting our money where our mouth is, so to speak. Investments in this budget will protect and grow the agriculture sector, as it is critical for trade, economic resilience and, importantly, jobs in regional Australia. Critically, Labor is delivering on its election commitment to provide long-term, sustainable funding for biosecurity.

I support the comments from the member for Paterson that this investment is long overdue. We have drawn a line under the years of stopgap, temporary budget booby traps and biosecurity funding cuts from the National Party that put the regions at risk. We've reversed the $100 million annual funding cut that was locked in by the former Liberal-National government. It's astounding to think that National Party ministers—I'm talking about the member for New England and Senator McKenzie—allowed this to happen while they sat in the Morrison cabinet and on the Expenditure Review Committee of that former government.

Biosecurity is a shared responsibility, and so is paying for it. The Albanese Labor government's $1 billion sustainable funding model is the start of a new era for biosecurity in Australia. The Albanese government is providing $845 million for biosecurity operations, including support for frontline workers at seaports and airports around the nation; $145 million for digital systems to streamline process and make it easier for industry; and $40 million for Indigenous rangers in northern Australia to support First Nations to work on country protecting our coastline. Our investments will protect and grow our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries in a way that is fairer, more equitable and more accountable than ever before.

I'd also like to support comments from the member for Lyons about the importance of our forestry industry. The Albanese Labor government supports sustainable forestry and continues to invest in forestry industry innovation, manufacturing and skills development. The October budget included $300 million in new measures to support the forestry sector. We are expanding the plantation estate. We are modernising our manufacturing processes and giving workers the skills they need in a modern, sustainable industry.

Our forestry industry generates more than 15,000 jobs in my state of Victoria. Almost half of these are in wood product manufacturing. Forestry also makes an important contribution to the fight against climate change. Native forest production contributed a net carbon sink of 39 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020. That is through sequestration from regrowth, which exceeded emissions from harvesting. Sustainable forestry, the sector itself and the workers within it contribute to achieving our carbon targets, capturing and storing carbon from the atmosphere into our trees and the products that are made from them.

I am incredibly proud to be part of a Labor government that is continuing to protect and grow our agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors so that we can support regional Australia in the generations to come by providing clean, green, sustainable and renewable jobs.

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

I would like to start by expressing my absolute dismay at the manner in which we have moved through the consideration in detail stage of these bills. Normal practice is that members have an opportunity to talk to the budget. We did not have that opportunity—well, 50 of us did not have that opportunity. There were 50 of us on the sheet—that is one-third of the parliament—who were cut, with no notice given. All that we have is five minutes to speak to a specific issue, a specific area of the budget—in this particular case, agriculture. This is not the first time that this has happened. This happened in December last year, and I thought, 'Well, okay, fair enough. It is coming towards the end of the year. Time is quite tight; we all know that.' However, for the government to do this twice in a row to members—and many of those members are crossbench members—who will not have an opportunity to speak, I think, is abysmal.

In the last parliament, the then shadow minister Manager of Opposition Business in the House argued that similar actions to what we are experiencing now—with regularity—was to trash the norms of the parliament. He said, 'This is not normal. Governments of both persuasions have used their numbers to silence the other side from time to time, but not like this.' He further said, 'This denies members an extension for people who voted for them to talk about important issues and it shows contempt for the parliament and the public.' They were the words of the now Leader of the House. Yet here we are with a different government employing the same tactics. I have to say, I have been here now for seven years. I was never stopped from speaking on the appropriations bills, and to cut 50 of us, I think, is really quite appalling, and it is hypocritical.

Now, onto agriculture. I am pleased to see what the government is doing here with an additional $1 billion over four years, strengthening Australia's biosecurity system, protecting agriculture, fisheries and forestry, but I am concerned this expenditure is offset by a biosecurity protection levy on Australian producers. Quite frankly, they have gone through enough. This levy is set at 10 per cent of the existing industry led agriculture levies. This is an enormous impost on our regions and on the rural sector, which are already struggling with high energy and fuel costs. The sector will have no choice but to pass this on to consumers. So my question to the minister is will this add to further inflationary pressures? And I ask the government: How will inflation be brought under control given these inflationary measures that are contained within?

I would also like to talk about rural roads with my left over time. I have to say, the rural roads network walks hand-in-hand with agriculture. We all know that. If you don't have good roads in the regions you cannot get your product to market. To quote the National Farmers' Federation, 'Repairing our roads means strengthening our connection to markets, making food more available and affordable to Australians. I think it's a missed opportunity to bring down costs in the food supply chain, so my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is: do you see that there is an intrinsic link between the production of agriculture and ensuring that our rural roads are safe, well-maintained and well-funded?

The $250 million of new funding for repair and improvements is so far short of what is required. We know that road accidents, particularly fatalities, are more likely on regional roads than they are on metropolitan roads. That's the way it is. We also know that our rural road network carries on it all the heavy vehicles. That, combined with vulnerable road users, particularly those who are caravaners not used to driving on rural roads, and the fact that we have so many roads that are in such a state of disrepair, will, I think, have a negative impact on agriculture in particular, so I ask the minister: is this an issue that the minister is concerned about? To me, the two are intrinsically linked.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind honourable members to keep their remarks relevant to the portfolio, because time is short. I give the call to the minister.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is, of course, just over a month since the Treasurer delivered the Albanese government's second budget. It is a budget that has a very strong focus on the regions and a strong focus to protect and grow the agricultural sector. It's a budget with a focus on jobs and on filling critical gaps that, frankly, the National Party failed to fix in nearly a decade. This budget does include over $1.5 billion of additional investment in agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries, and we do this because we absolutely recognise the importance of food and fibre security to our nation and to the world. We understand the economic importance of keeping our regional, rural and remote communities strong, resilient and productive, and productive they are.

In the face of global trade pressures, labour shortages and the challenges of floods, fires and national disasters, agriculture is at record highs. The value of Australian agriculture is forecast to be $90 billion this year, while our agricultural exports will be $75 billion. But we can't be complacent about that. The arrival of new pests and disease into Australia can have devastating and very long-lasting impacts. With the ever-increasing volume of travellers and trade across our borders, we do need sophisticated and well-functioning biosecurity systems to protect our plant, animal and environmental health. A strong biosecurity system is absolutely vital for exports. It's vital for jobs and vital for our way of life.

It is amazing to think that, until this budget, biosecurity funding was never stable, never secure and never predictable. Our budget changes that, just as we promised to do at the election. It invests more than a billion dollars in our biosecurity to protect and to grow our $90 billion agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. This investment is permanent and it is locked in for every year in the future. We have drawn a line under what, frankly, were stopgap measures, temporary budget booby traps of underfunding and biosecurity funding cuts from the National Party that put the regions at risk. We've reversed the $100 million annual funding cut that was locked in by the former government—something that the National Party ministers allowed to happen while they were at ERC.

Biosecurity is a shared responsibility, and so is paying for it. The Albanese Labor government's $1 billion sustainable funding model is the start of a new era of biosecurity funding. Our investment will protect and grow agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries in a way that is fairer, more equitable and more accountable than ever before. We are committing to permanently deduct more dedicated taxpayer funding than ever. Taxpayers will be contributing 44 per cent of costs in 2024-25. We're recovering more than ever before from those who create the risk, the importers, who'll contribute 48 per cent of costs for biosecurity in 2024-25. We will also introduce, as members have asked me questions about, the modest new biosecurity protection levy on beneficiaries of the strong biosecurity system, our agriculture, fisheries and forestry producers, and that levy is six per cent. They are the beneficiaries of this system and it is important that they contribute as well.

Farmers have so much at stake, and it is fair to ask them to pay a little bit more for this incredibly important system, just as we are asking other working Australians to contribute through the taxes that they pay. We will work very closely with industry, in answer to what the member for Fairfax was asking, on levy design and implementation, as well as how we use the funds to protect the agricultural sector. We continue to explore ways to reform cost-recovery arrangements, including the option of a broader biosecurity import levy that is consistent with our international trade law obligations, and our sustainable funding model locks in higher and permanent biosecurity funding along with a fair system to pay for it.

Given the very short time I have left to speak in this debate and that we are already past the time for the debate on the Treasury to start, I want to thank members for their contributions to this debate. To the member for Mayo in particular I say that road funding is a shared responsibility between local, state and federal governments, and the way in which we fund from the federal government is of course the increase of $250 million, bringing it to $750 million for local roads through the Local Road and Community Infrastructure Program, but there is also the $500 million for Roads to Recovery, the Bridges Renewal Program and the blackspots program that we have locked in to this budget, as well as the financial assistance grants funding that has a roads component— (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Treasury Portfolio

Proposed expenditure $5,979,008,000

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be speaking on this important area of portfolio expenditure, which is part of our budget, as we have emphasised many times, that is about cleaning up the mess that we inherited. To put that in context, the $4.2 billion surplus that we are projecting for this budget is a significant turnaround. This time last year the former government was projecting an $80 billion deficit, so we have gone from an $80 billion deficit to a $4.2 billion surplus because we have taken the tough decisions that our predecessors were unwilling or unable to take. It's because, for example, we're banking 87 per cent of the new revenue. It is important to pay down the debt immediately because it frees up cash in the out years to ensure that that money can then be invested in new priorities. We'll have $80 billion in interest payment savings. To put that in context, that is close to twice what we're spending on an annual basis on the Defence budget, so it is real money that makes a big difference to what the government's capacity will be in out years if we take these tough decisions now.

Within the Treasury portfolio there are a few items that I want to bring to the attention of members. Members will know that the government is particularly passionate about fighting scams and consumer fraud. About $3 billion a year is being lost to scams, and Australian households and small businesses are being ripped off by criminals and fraudsters who are stealing their hard-earned cash. Until now they have been left to fight this on their own. Our predecessors had no regard and certainly no strategy or policy to deal with the scourge of scams. We are turning that around—

through this $86 million package investing in a new antiscam centre through the ACCC. The very noisy member for Bradfield has more members working in his electorate office than the funds and staff that they provided on their watch to the ACCC to fight scams. I will say that again: he had more members working in his electorate office than he provided to the ACCC to fight scams, and that is an indication of his priorities.

It is the empty drum that makes the most noise, and there are no emptier drums on the government's front bench. The $86 million investment will enable us to establish a national antiscam centre to ensure that consumers and small businesses will no longer be left to fight on their own as they were under the former government because it wasn't a priority for them. We will also be putting in place new codes of practice to ensure that banks, telecommunications companies and social media platforms will have a high bar to ensure that they are providing—

I understand the member for Bradfield has got time allocated too.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I'd like to hear the assistant minister, please.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's got an embarrassing record to defend. Anybody who could spend $30 million on a $3 million block of land has got a lot of embarrassing history to cover up. We're dedicated to fighting scams; they were dedicated to covering them up.

I will speak in relation to payday super. Every year, $3.4 billion worth of superannuation owed to employees goes unpaid. We think that money belongs in the accounts of everyday Australians. It wasn't a priority for the former government. It is a priority for us, which is why in this budget we're dedicating the funds and the policy priority to ensure that everyday Australians are getting superannuation that they're entitled to. Now, there are a lot of employers that are already doing the right thing; in fact, the vast majority of them are already doing the right thing and paying every cent of the super that is owed to their employees. But those who aren't are getting an unfair advantage over those employers who are doing the right thing—a $3.6 billion advantage over those employers who are doing the right thing. It wasn't a priority for the former government. It is a priority for us.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I remind honourable members to keep the cross-talk to a minimum. It erodes your speaking time, which is already short.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak particularly about the digital economy and this government's complete neglect of the digital economy. The sad fact is that this government does not have a minister for the digital economy. The digital economy was a clear priority for the previous government. We had a minister for the digital economy. We had a clear goal for Australia to be a leading digital economy by 2030. We had clear policy initiatives such as the Consumer Data Right, which allows consumers to have access to their own data and for that data to then be made available to providers, who could say, for example, 'We have analysed the history of your bank account and the history of your lending practices, and we can do a better deal for you.' The Consumer Data Right is all about leveraging the power of the digital economy to deliver greater benefits for consumers, and that was a clear priority for the previous government.

My questions for the minister are: when will this government appoint a minister for the digital economy? When will this government commit to a national digital economy strategy, something that the previous government had? When will this government recognise that one of the ways of addressing the clear productivity problem which Australia faces—and we've seen some very sobering statistics on productivity just in the last few days—is to have a clear focus on the digital economy and the productivity benefits that it can bring?

One very good example of the benefits that the digital economy can bring is digital platforms. This was addressed by the Productivity Commission in its recent five-year productivity review highlighting the importance of digital platforms in stimulating productivity and innovation. We have seen, of course, millions of Australians embrace this over the last decade. Many millions of us regularly get around with ride-sharing services like Uber, Ola and ingogo. We order meals through platforms like DoorDash, Menulog and Uber Eats. We find someone to help with a job around the home using services like Airtasker. You would think a government that says it's committed to innovation and says it's committed to improving productivity would be determined to bolster this sector. Instead, they are virulently opposed to it. Indeed, the minister for industrial relations has described the gig economy as a cancer. Why has he done that? Why is this government hostile to the digital economy and hostile to the gig economy? The reason is that the union bosses don't like it. What the union bosses want to do is go back to the 1970s, when most people were employed full time, when we had an overwhelmingly male workforce. That's the change that the union bosses want to achieve, and that's the change that this government is being responsive to.

But, as the Productivity Commission has rightly highlighted, the gig economy offers significant potential productivity benefits, and at a time when we face, as a nation, a significant productivity problem it is important that we should be encouraging developments in this area. As the Productivity Commission pointed out in its recent five-year productivity inquiry, the gig economy is bringing economywide benefits by boosting productivity through 'matching efficiency in service markets and spurring technological innovation by platforms and their competitors'. It's no surprise that Australians are responding to this innovation in very large numbers—both the millions of Australians who use this service and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who have responded to the opportunity to provide their services in a flexible way at a time that suits them, often doing work that they fit into a life with their other responsibilities—which might be study or family responsibilities. Those are choices that Australians have made, and the digital economy has facilitated them making those choices but, regrettably, this government is hostile to those choices and hostile to the gig economy. That is why we have seen the workplace relations minister describing the gig economy as 'a cancer'.

My question for ministers here with economic responsibilities—I note with some disappointment that again this government is showing its contempt for parliamentary scrutiny by the Treasurer not being bothered to turn up. Instead, we have an outer minister here. The question I ask of the minister is: why is the government so determined to impose policies that would adversely impact the digital economy? What is this government doing to be serious about growing the digital economy so that Australia doesn't lag behind the rest of the world, something we are at serious risk of under the mess of policies this government currently has?

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like many of us in this room I'm approached continuously by members of my constituency who raise the issue of superannuation and unpaid super. I was very pleased to see the announcements by the government about payday super because it's very important to ensure that people receive their super when it's due to them. What we've seen in the past is that it could be paid every quarter. Sometimes employers fell behind and it was never paid, and that was the most common thing that I heard in electorate when people came to see about super. They'd go back and the company would be defunct, bankrupt, insolvent, and they would never get their money. You have to remember that super is not a gift from the employer to the worker; it's paid to them for their remuneration of labour that they give. The reality is that, when super first came in back in the eighties, workers gave a part of their pay to get that original three per cent. That's what happens—it's part of your pay. So I was very pleased to see that the government has brought in payday super, and that will start on 1 July 2026. It will require employers to pay their employees super at the same time as their salary when they're being paid. As I said, it's not a gift—it's part of your salary. It's part of your package and part of the labour that you have given.

I'm not saying that it's all employers—most employers do the right thing, from what we hear. The Australian tax office estimates that there's over $3.4 billion worth of super that goes unpaid. That was in 2019-20, and I reckon it has gone up since then. This will ensure that people get there super on time and not every three months, which allows the employer to fall behind and occasionally never pays it to the worker. It'll also assist the person receiving the super because of compound interest et cetera. The longer it's in that account, the better off it is for that particular person. I think it's estimated that a medium income worker at 25 years of age and currently receiving their super quarterly—compared to wages fortnightly—could be around $6,000 better off because of that compound interest and because of the money being in that account. By switching to payday super, you will be able to earn more. It keeps the employer's books and records up to date. As I said, most employers do the right thing, but, still, when you estimate $3.4 billion of unpaid super for people that have contributed their labour, it's no different from wage theft. It is exactly the same. It's no different.

It's been a long time coming. These laws should have been brought in years ago by the opposition when they were in government, but, obviously, all we saw then was that the former treasurer, Mr Hockey, would not increase the super payments back in 2014 even though they'd made a pledge to do so. I recall very well him saying, 'Well, it's better off in their pockets than in super.' At the time, I was out of this place and I was negotiating EBAs. I tried it at every EBA. How many workplaces do you think said, 'Yes, we'll give you that in increased wages'? Zero—not one of them. Those workers missed out on a pledge that was made by the government back then, and they've missed out on thousands of dollars for their retirement.

You have to remember: super is for people's retirement. The more that they accumulate in super, the better off governments are, regardless of what persuasion, because those people will have more money to live on and need less of a handout from the government. So it's very important that we strengthen these laws. It is important that everyone does the right thing and pays their super, because, as I said, if you're not paying super, it's no different from wage theft.

I was very pleased to see the government and the minister implement these measures, which will mean that people will do the right thing and ensure that billions of dollars will get paid to workers, as they deserve for giving their labour. As I said, it's no different from your wages—super is part of that remuneration package that you get. I believe it will start on 1 July, and I'm sure we'll hear more about it from the minister and more on how it's going to strengthen Australia's superannuation system and help deliver a more dignified time with their salary and wages. As I said, it's an important measure. It will secure people's super and ensure that wage theft won't take place, because it's exactly the same.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opening question, of course, is: where is the Treasurer? It's a fair question. The previous minister, I'll acknowledge, is the first Labor minister to sit the whole way through on this. I've sat in on a number of these consideration in detail processes. It's become the norm for Labor not to send their ministers in and for the junior ministers and the MPs to not even acknowledge the questions that are being asked of them, let alone attempt to answer them, but simply read pre-prepared statements.

I want to go to a couple of statements from the Prime Minister here. This is from Anthony Albanese, our Prime Minister:

… we do need to restore faith in our political system. We need to make sure that there is transparency, accountability and integrity.

That is our Prime Minister.

The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy.

That is our Prime Minister. Further, and very appropriately to this process, the Prime Minister promised the Australian people that a government he led would expose itself to 'those checks and balances that are so important'. Deputy Speaker, I would put it to you that consideration in detail is one of the most important checks and balances we have in the parliamentary process. The hypocrisy could not be more on display when they hide behind this process. Second question: does the Treasurer accept this low standard, and should the Australian people expect it to continue? I think, by his absence, we have ourselves an answer. This could not stand in starker contrast to the previous government. In the midst of the pandemic, the then Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, sat there, took questions and answered them.

Going back to that time, the most recent Roy Morgan business confidence report shows that business confidence hasn't been this low for this long since the dark days of that pandemic. Business confidence is now 21.9 points below the long-term average of 112.2, and 62 per cent of respondents expect bad times for the economy over the next year. Does the Treasurer accept responsibility for these low levels of business confidence? Does he accept that this budget has failed to inspire confidence in the business community? Having seen this strong rebuke of his budget by the business community, what changes to his budget would he now make if he had his time again?

In preparation for the delivery of this budget, the Treasurer pledged to 'remake capitalism'. Is this budget a part of that work, or is the job now done? It's been, apparently, a very good 10 months. Is this as good as it gets? Given the failure of this budget to turn around Australia's inflation crisis and the continued need for the RBA to raise interest rates, does the Treasurer now acknowledge it was a mistake to try and reinvent the wheel before he'd learned how to turn it? Will the Treasurer now turn his focus away from remaking capitalism to fighting inflation, which is the challenge of the day?

Prior to the election and in the lead-up to the budget, the Treasurer committed to no tax hikes and stated that he had no plans to increase taxes to Australians. Given the introduction of the farmers tax and the increase to the truckies tax in this budget, was the Treasurer deliberately misleading the Australian people when he made these statements, or was the deception accidental? Prior to the election and in the lead-up to the budget, the Treasurer stated that claims they would increase taxes were just a 'scare campaign'. Does the Treasurer now accept that these were statements of fact and that Labor has indeed increased taxes? The Treasurer's repeatedly spoken of fiscal restraint in this budget and yet it confirms government spending will increase by $185 billion. Relative government spending is now higher than it was pre-pandemic. How does the Treasurer reconcile his use of the word 'restraint' with the cold hard fact of $185 billion of increased spending? Is this not just a typical big-spending, big-taxing Labor budget?

Prior to the election, the Treasurer said:

There's lots that we can do to ease the cost of living pressures on families to make it easier to afford grocery prices …

Can the Treasurer detail how many grocery items on Australian shelves have experienced a reduction in price? What measures in this budget were directly targeted at reducing grocery prices? And why have these measures failed?

This budget confirms that around 175,000 Australians are projected to lose their jobs over the course of the next four years. This stands in stark contrast to the performance of the last government, which oversaw the creation of almost two million jobs during its term of office. Is job creation important to the Treasurer? What immediate steps is he taking to rectify the failings in his budget? Can the Treasurer confirm that the unionised workforce can expect more job certainty under this government than the non-unionised workforce?

Australia has experienced the steepest 12-month fall in productivity on record. The government has acknowledged this as a key area of concern.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As reported in the Australian:

… Parliamentary Library researchers found budget paper one mentioned productivity 53 times, but did not include a substantive program to boost the economy's productive capacity.

This is incredible! The obvious questions to the Treasurer are: Why? Was this a deliberate omission? And when can the Australian people expect to see this omission corrected?

Real wages fell 3.1 per cent in the first 12 months of this Labor government's term and are now 5.4 per cent below where they were before the pandemic. Why has this budget failed to get real wages growing again? Can the Treasurer confirm that this is a promise he cannot keep and a promise that he had absolutely no intention of keeping?

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Honourable members, I can see you're all highly exercised over this topic. I would suggest that you keep the cross-talk to a minimum. I am struggling to hear.

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for his statements and for the work he's doing to strengthen Australia's financial system to improve our economy, and the budget is a great example of that. We have just listened to the member for Groom ask the hard-hitting question, 'Where is the Treasurer?' That's his opening question in a session designed to be a forum for scrutiny of the budget in detail. He didn't go through any questions about the budget of any substance. He didn't ask us about the budget forecasts. He didn't ask us about the domestic outlook. He didn't question any of the global economic aggregates. He had no questions about the fiscal position. He had no questions about any appropriations or about the long-term fiscal strategy. His concept of using the parliament to provide scrutiny on the budget and deliver questions in detail was to provide a rant at a high level about: 'Where is the Treasurer?'

We have an important role as parliamentarians to use the customs and procedures of this parliament to provide input, and, in the case of the opposition, scrutiny on the budget. What we have seen over the course of the last two speakers is people who appear to have not even read the budget—people who don't have any concept of what is in the budget, don't have any analysis of the content of the budget papers and are unable to ask a single question about the contents of those papers. It's as if they haven't read it, showing contempt for an important role of public oversight. One of the reasons why this budget is so unnerving and upsetting for those opposite is that this budget delivers a budget surplus.

It sticks in the craw of those opposite, because if there is a raison detre of the Liberal Party, if there is a reason for them to go home and sleep at night, it is because they hold onto the core belief that they deliver budget surpluses. That is the kind of warm, fuzzy feeling—admittedly long in the distant history now—that gives them a sense that all the other detrimental things they do to Australia and to Australians are okay because they deliver budget surpluses. So sitting here and watching the Labor Party in its first year in office delivering the budget surplus that they couldn't, I feel for them. I know how painful that might be. It is like the pea under the mattress, you know? You just can't quite sleep at night because something does not feel quite right.

An honourable me mber interjecting—

The Princess allusion was intended. They came so close. This is the tragedy. They were within reach of it, they felt. They even printed all the merchandise, the final validation of all the rhetoric about debt and deficits over the course of the Abbott government and the Turnbull government and the Morrison government. They came so close and to be not able to deliver it was a setback. It was a blow. I feel for them. And then to have to watch the Labor government deliver a surplus in its first year of government, that must be tough. So I can see why it is hard for them to read the budget papers. It is hard for them to read about the surplus. It is hard for them to read about the low rate of unemployment. It is hard for them to read about the concrete steps that this government is taking to tackle the real challenges that Australia has.

But nonetheless, those opposite have to get over that and they have to read it. They have to overcome the pain of reading about the government's budget surplus, reading about the positive economic initiatives and conditions that the government has put in place, because that is their job. And if they don't read the budget, if they don't read through the pages about that surplus and about those positive economic conditions and those initiatives for the future, they won't be able to come into forums like this and ask substantive questions that provide real scrutiny on the elements of the budget.

So I would encourage those opposite to overcome their trepidation, overcome the significant trigger warnings that they will inflict on themselves by reading about this Labor surplus, actually read the budget, go through it and do what my kids do—close their eyes over the bits that are especially painful when they are watching a scary movie. You can skip the bit about the budget surplus forecast this year if you have to. Read it in detail and come into forums like this and ask substantive questions.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I find interesting is this is consideration in detail. I quite like that the assistant Treasurer. We got elected together in 2010, so we have some bon ami as far as that goes. But two government speakers—this is consideration in detail—have made statements for five minutes and actually not asked a single question about what is in the budget and how it is going to benefit people. That is because there is very little in the budget that benefits Australian people. The previous speaker wants me to quote from the budget papers. I will happily oblige the member. On page 56 of budget statement No. 2, it says, 'Financial markets and market economists now expect the cash rate to remain at 3.85 per cent until early 2024.' Well, that has gone up in dust, hasn't it? We are now 4.1. Does that mean that everything else in the budget is now irrelevant?

As we stand here and listen to those opposite, they have a budget built on a foundation set by the work of successive coalition governments. All we have seen in this budget are higher taxes and more expenditure, putting pressure on inflation and making things worse for the Australian people. They have failed to deal with pressures in many areas in the economy—failed outright. Energy prices are now higher than when they came into government. Interest rates are now higher than when they came into government. And we've seen them raise taxes, which they said they wouldn't do. The member for Groom outlined a couple—the truckies tax and the tax on agriculture, through the quarantine levy. But also we've seen changes to franking credits, something else those opposite said, during the election campaign, they wouldn't do. We've seen the average income tax take go up as inflation has borne down on Australians, with bracket creep. This budget and the government's 12 months in office are full of broken promises, and they continue.

The Prime Minister said on 4 March 2022, in relation to franking credits, that Labor was 'not touching them'. A week later, on ABC radio, he said, 'We won't have any changes to the franking credits regime.' The Treasurer—who, as has been noted earlier, is not here for consideration in detail—said:

… we won't be doing franking credits … I couldn't be clearer than that.

However, we've seen changes to franking credits since they came to government, in direct opposition to what they said. Why has the Treasurer attacked Australians with these changes to franking credits, double-dipping and a tax grab on retirees and investors? A second question is: are there any further plans of this government to further tax retirees and their franking credits?

But it's not only franking credits; it's also superannuation, where we have seen a change to the tax treatment of super for the higher balances. To paraphrase a comment from the Assistant Treasurer, his view is that superannuation is a honey pot. Well, it's not a honey pot for the government; it's something for Australians to have for their retirement. The government needs to understand that, with this tax hike they have promised—which is not indexed, by the way—if you do some longer-term analysis of what people will accumulate in their superannuation over the years to come, there are going to be a far wider range of people impacted by these changes than currently proposed. But on this side of the chamber we'll continue to back superannuation and a lower tax environment for all Australians. In relation to super more generally, we've seen, as I said, the interest rates go up, so what is the government going to do to reduce interest rates and reduce the pressure on Australian households? (Time expired)

Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amongst the rest of the ridiculous questions that had nothing to do with anything actually in the budget that the member for Groom raised in his contribution, he said this: 'Is job creation important to the Treasurer?' It's probably a good time to mention, then, that the job figures have come out today, and the unemployment rate has decreased to 3.6 per cent, the participation rate has increased to 66.9 per cent, full-time employment has increased by 61,700 and employment has increased by over 70,000. Jobs have increased. So I think it's palpably clear that not only is job creation important to the Treasurer and this government, but we're getting on with the job of doing it.

I also note that a number of members on the opposite side have asked where the Treasurer is. The Assistant Treasurer doesn't need me to defend him because he's a pretty robust fellow in his own right, but I just thought it might be worth pointing out, before the next person asks where the Treasurer is, that the bills that we're currently discussing were introduced by the Assistant Treasurer, and the responsibility for these bills falls with the Assistant Treasurer. The Assistant Treasurer is more than capable of answering the questions—if we are going to be so kind as to call them questions—that have been directed towards the government by members on the other side. So hopefully no-one else is going to ask where the Treasurer is today. We've got the person responsible right here.

One of the things that my constituents contact me about—and I know everyone in the parliament gets this sort of contact—is of course the rising cost of living. The budget did not shy away from the fact that there is a significant burden on Australians from the cost of living at the moment. Not only did it not shy away from it but it had a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package in it. One of the things at the heart of that package is to triple the bulk-billing incentive so that more Australians can get to see a doctor for free. Because it is bulk-billed, they do not have to worry about the cost, and just as importantly, if not more importantly, they can get their health needs dealt with when they need them dealt with instead of sitting at home working out how they can save the money just to go and see a GP. Of course, that $14.6 billion cost-of-living package had much more in it. It provided energy relief to over five million households and one million small businesses. We don't hear a great deal from the other side about that energy relief because they voted against energy relief, so they do not like to tell their constituents or anyone about that.

The cost-of-living package helps 170,000 households save on energy bills by financing energy-saving home upgrades. That makes a big difference to a lot people. As I said, we are reducing out-of-pocket health cost by tripling bulk-billing incentive and investing in more bulk-billing urgent care clinics. I am really, really pleased that one of those urgent care clinics is in Frankston, in my electorate of Dunkley. It is getting harder and harder for so many of my constituents to get in to see a doctor, and the emergency room at Frankston Hospital is always packed out, which means hours of waiting. The urgent care clinic makes a massive difference because people can go there to get their care instead of having to wait at the hospital.

Our cost-of-living relief package is cutting the cost of medicine by up to half for at least six million Australians—up to half—and 60-day dispensing will make a massive difference to a lot of people with chronic health issues. In addition, 57,000 single parents are benefiting from expanding the eligibility for the parenting payment. The base rates for JobSeeker and other payments are increasing for 1.1 million people. Commonwealth rent assistance is also increasing for 1.1 million people. Through these measures and things like tax breaks to ensure more investment in build-to-rent projects, we are looking after Australians and will continue to do so.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by acknowledging that the budget made some important commitments, which I welcome and they have been welcomed by the Wentworth community. These include more support for Australia's health system, more support for our aged-care system and the foundation investment in household electrification. In those respects and in others the budget was one that listened and responded to concerns of my community. But in other respects, and very important respects, it was not. The missing piece in this year's budget was a reform agenda focussed on dealing with some of the highest-priority long-term issues facing our economy, which will have a particularly detrimental effect on younger and future generations. I believe the Treasurer cares about the future, and I believe that he cares about intergenerational issues. But I think it is pretty clear that the budget failed to give appropriate weight to three of the most important concerns: the affordability of housing, the sustainability of our tax system and the rate of productivity growth in our economy. Each of these has real and negative impacts on Australians today but also much deeper consequences for our youth and future generations.

Three statistics outline the challenge. On housing: Australia's housing is some of the most unaffordable on earth. Sydney, where my electorate is, is the second most unaffordable place in world to live from a housing point of view, second only to Hong Kong. On tax: Australia is highly reliant on personal income taxes, but, as our population ages, we will either have to rely more and more on fewer workers to support the population or engage in meaningful tax reform. On productivity: productivity growth is now the slowest it has been for six decades. In fact, last year it went backwards by over four per cent. Low productivity growth is the most important factor in long-term improvements to standards of living. In each area of the budget, there were efforts to address these issues, but they were without the scale of ambition required for these problems. Really addressing these issues—real ambition—is what my community is asking for.

While there were welcome pieces in the budget on housing, such as changing the tax treatment of international build-to-rent properties, there was not a significant commitment to driving housing reform at the scale that is needed to rebalance income and housing costs, such as through hard incentives for states and local governments to rezone land. Scale of action is what we need. The government has said they're interested in building one million new homes in the five years up to 2030. If you look at the OECD figures, Australia's need for housing is possibly closer to two million homes, if you're going to truly address housing affordability. So the question to the Treasurer is: why not go further, and why not show further ambition?

The second missed opportunity was tax reform. Given the Prime Minister's commitment to not do anything on tax, I wasn't that surprised, but true tax reform only becomes more urgent and more important the longer we leave it. There were small changes in taxes such as PRRT, but the truth is that small fiddles such as those to the PRRT just make it harder to do truly transformational longer term reform, including on resource taxes. The question to the Treasurer is: why not at least kick off a consultation on tax so that you have something substantial to take to the future?

A final missed opportunity was productivity reform. I support the government's efforts in productivity reform, such as investment in reforming the migration system and in TAFE. These are critical. But there is no agenda from the government about how to make it easier for businesses to thrive and scale in this economy, nor how to drive productivity in the government sectors.

We had three things they could have done. We could have had a comprehensive response to the Productivity Commission's recent report. We pay these people to come up with reports on productivity. Surely, given the productivity crisis we're facing, we could get a government response as to which methods they're taking forward and which ones they're not taking forward and why.

Secondly, we need to adopt a cultural shift, as embodied, I think, in Service NSW, and apply that to federal government. Our systems are set up to suit the government rather than the people. This is true of the medical researcher who spends a quarter of their time on government grant writing instead of researching and of the not-for-profit that loses experienced staff because they don't know whether their contracts are ongoing or not in the next few months.

Finally, we need to listen to business about what they think is most important to driving productivity. The two biggest issues raised by business with me are around reforming industrial relations awards so they're simpler and right-sizing regulation so that regulations aren't put on top of each other and mixed in with state regulation. The budget ignored both of these pleas from business. Housing, tax and productivity—they are issues today; they're only going to be more important in the future. These were missed opportunities in the budget.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've been asked a range of questions. I think I've got two minutes to reply in the time allotted, though I will, in the course of this matter moving through the parliament, have more to say.

The member for Groom asked: what is the government's plan for unemployment? We have a plan. It's about training, it's about supporting industry and it's about supporting business. On current data, it's working. Unemployment figures today dropped, and I can inform the House that for the first time in our nation's history we now have 14 million people in work. That's a significant national achievement, which we're proud of our contribution to.

The member for Bradfield asked me a series of questions about the Consumer Data Right. All I can say to the member for Bradfield is that if it was such an important initiative they should have funded it. In fact, they didn't. It would have dropped dead. They had the opportunity to fund it in their last budget, in May last year; they did not. We've put an additional $80 million into it to ensure the Consumer Data Right is deepened and strengthened in the sectors where it's currently operating.

I'm asked about our digital agenda. The Minister for Finance is currently leading a project around a digital ID. I'm working cooperatively with her on that and a range of other projects. I've talked about our scams and antifraud agenda. Quite simply, if Australians cannot have faith in online commerce, they will stop using it, so our antiscams agenda is a consumer agenda but also an economic agenda. It will ensure that Australians who are doing their shopping online, doing their business online and transforming their businesses online into the data era can have faith that the people they are talking with or transacting with are legitimate. Our scams and antifraud agenda, together with our cybercrime agenda, is all about bolstering that confidence.

Finally, I was asked about business confidence and I was asked about confidence in the Australian people. Whenever I go and talk to business or the Australian people, the first thing they say to me is: 'Thank god we've got a grown-up government in charge. Thank god we've got a government that is focused on the Australian people and their needs, and not on itself.' So when we're talking confidence, let's have confidence, and we can be confident that we now have a government which is focused on the big challenges, whether it's energy, climate change, cybercrime, consumer fraud, inflation, employment, training, skills or immigration. We've got a government which is not fighting against itself but tackling the big challenges that we face, whether they are economic or social, I thank members for their contributions to this debate.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Attorney-General's Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $3,464,557,000

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by saying a huge thank you to the tremendous work that not only the Prime Minister but also our Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, are doing to build a stronger future for First Nations communities not just in my electorate of Robertson but right across the country. From our metropolitan city centres to our regional and remote communities, we are truly building a stronger future for First Nations communities, and part of that stronger future is the implementation in full of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, for voice, for treaty and for truth. The Voice, at its core, is about two things: firstly, recognition—recognising our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters as the first peoples of this land; and, secondly consultation—that is, the establishment of an independent Voice to Parliament so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can have a say on the issues that will affect them at the end of the day.

I know people in this chamber love it when I get a bit medical, and I'm going to get a bit medical again, because this is about listening. As doctors, nurses and allied health professionals know, one of the most important things that we do at the bedside is taking a patient's history and listening to the patient. More often than not, when you listen and take that history, you will formulate a provisional diagnosis and start a treatment plan that will ultimately save a life—and that's way before a physical examination, any pathology testing or any scans. That's the power of listening, and that's what the Voice is at its core. We will be listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about the issues that will affect them and their communities at the end of the day.

Something I would also like to bring up in relation to the Voice, particularly about enshrining it in our Constitution, is that in this 47th parliament we have 11 First Nations MPs and senators from right across the political spectrum, which is a fantastic outcome for this country. To have such high Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation in this parliament—the federal parliament, our nation's parliament—is excellent. However, in the 48th or 49th parliaments, that may not be the case. What this voice does is permanently enshrine that Voice—the voices of First Nations communities—in the parliament of Australia. I think that's a really important point to make with the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and particularly with the establishment of the establishment of the Voice. I also want to make mention that the 2023-24 budget does also extend existing funding to enable the investment of $20 million to progress regional voice arrangements.

On that note, I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General for work that they are doing in implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart and for progressing the referendum so that every Australian can have their say. Because it is not about us here; it's about every Australian out there having their say on recognising and listening to First Nations communities. With that, I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question: What is the government doing with regards to First Nations communities to ensure the success of the Voice?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on this debate in relation to the appropriations bills as they concern the Attorney-General's portfolio. I want to speak firstly about the responsibility of the government and of the Attorney-General and the portfolio for which he has responsibility to keep Australians safe. We live in a dangerous world. There are terrorism and other threats facing Australia, and foreign actors are launching cyberattacks against our country and agencies and businesses within it regularly. Just today, we learned about the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner having had its own data accessed by hackers. This is the agency that monitors privacy breaches caused by cyberattacks. According to media reports, it is under attack itself through a third party, so I ask the Attorney: What actions have the government taken to address these concerning reports?

It is noteworthy that this budget reduces funding for frontline agencies in a number of ways, frontline agencies which are charged with keeping Australians safe. This budget cuts almost $26 million from our intelligence agencies, from the funding which is provided for officials for parliamentary departments and new oversight mechanisms. It redirects almost $130 million from the Defence budget, money allocated to pay for ongoing inquiries into Afghanistan. It's curious that this government would take money away from the defence forces at a time when it is widely acknowledged that Australia faces the most complex strategic environment since the Second World War.

One of the noteworthy features of this budget is that the measure that commits to protecting Australians from homegrown terrorism lasts for just two years. We have had minister after minister making much of the fact that there were expiring budget measures committed to by the previous government. Apparently it was an outrage that in every area there were budget measures we had not provided funding in perpetuity, so this government will not be required to make any decisions of any kind. But what is remarkable is that, having criticised expiring budget measures up hill and down dale, this government has now produced a budget which contains an expiring measure—just two years of funding—in relation to the threat of homegrown terrorists. Apparently somehow the threat of homegrown terrorists will miraculously cease at the end of two years. I ask how the Attorney-General: How can this possibly be justified in view of the principle which apparently is articulated and committed to by ministers in this government that any expiring budget measure will automatically and inherently be condemned? If you believe what ministers have repeatedly told the House in recent weeks, that is the principle to which they hold firm. So I ask the Attorney-General: How can that principle be reconciled with the fact that this particular measure expires after two years?

I want to turn to the Voice. The previous coalition government committed $31.8 million for local and regional voices, for reasons that go to, as our leader and many of us have explained, our belief that giving local communities effective representation, particularly remote communities, is likely to be a way in which there can be greater responsibility achieved by government to the direct frontline concerns of remote communities. That is the reason why we committed $31.8 million in our last budget to local regional voices. But, curiously, this budget commits to spending only $20 million in this area, so I ask the Attorney-General: What's being done with the rest of the funding? Does this indicate, once again, that this government is in fact equivocal at best in its commitment to local and regional voices, about which we have heard surprisingly little over the time since this government has come to power, notwithstanding local and regional voices being an important element of what was recommended in the Calma-Langton report?

This budget commits to spending legal fees on 'a number of international legal actions', but won't disclose the amounts. I ask the Attorney-General: why is this? There is an additional $95 million pumped into one department, for public servants—just one department. Meanwhile, funding for programs like the Lighthouse program in the Family Court drops off a cliff. Attorney, will the government commit to further funding the Lighthouse program past 2026-27?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to address the Attorney-General about appropriations for his portfolio. Attorney-General, I've always firmly believed that the first concern of this nation's Family Court should be the best interests of the child. I know some men's rights groups think otherwise, but I'll never understand why anybody would want a system that doesn't prioritise the interests of children when it comes to making potentially life-changing decisions about their parenting arrangements. That is why, in opposition, I introduced a private member's bill to remove the misleading and dangerous presumption of equal shared parental responsibility from the Family Law Act. This change to the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in the Family Law Act was made in 2006, under the Howard government, by the then attorney-general Philip Ruddock.

The push to remove this dangerous amendment was part of Rosie Batty's and Women's Legal Services Australia's Safety First in Family Law campaign. This entailed five steps to create a family law system to keep women and children safe. It was launched in October 2019 and endorsed by more than 90 frontline organisations, including men's support organisations. Since Philip Ruddock's amendment—the equal-shared-parental-responsibility provisions—was first included in the Family Law Act, experts have been raising their concerns. Then shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon, in her speech on the second reading, said:

… some victims of family violence may develop the false view that they cannot stop their abuser from having contact with their children. I am advised by some service providers in the sector that this is already happening, mostly involving women who, despite their fears and concerns, feel that new laws mean they will have to accept equal time.

Sadly, after Howard's misstep, the family law system was again used as a political football by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. Family law has been subject to more than two dozen inquiries over the last two decades. I've been on some of those. Consistent among the reports that arose from those inquiries is the fact that our family law justice system contains way too much overly complex and, at times, confusing legislation. Report after report has raised concerns about the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. I'm proud to be part of the Labor Party that has long been committed to improving our family law system, with improvements to make it safer, simpler to use and more accessible, and to a justice system that delivers just and fair outcomes for families. I know that family law is one of the most difficult areas of our justice system. All too often, love turns to hate and logic turns to irrational beliefs that are usually wrong. Most people sort it out themselves, as you know, but there are some occasions when the state must step in to offer guidance. One of the reasons for this problem has been because the presumption has been misunderstood since day one. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General as to how the current changes will clarify the confusing framework in the Family Law Act for making decisions about parenting arrangements. Too often it has led to parents believing they have a right to equal time with their children after separation—fifty-fifty, seven days on and seven days off et cetera.

The misleading presumption of equal shared parental responsibility gave rise to many misogynist groups and others using this misunderstanding deliberately, to further advance their misogyny and argue that abusive parents must have access to their children, irrespective of the harm that might flow after. This can allow abusers to continue to harass their former partners through repeated Family Court action. I'm keen to hear the Attorney-General's views on any evidence that the courts were biased against men—and I'm sure that the extremist group that the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, met with, prior to the coalition voting down these family law changes, would be interested in hearing his reply.

We're all aware of the monumental change made by the merger of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court—a surprise merger that wasn't recommended. It was a merger that generated a high level of anxiety across the country, especially amongst family law practitioners.

I conclude by asking the Attorney-General to provide an update on the work being done by the Albanese government to address the issues presented by the merger of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court. When will Dr Frankenstein's creation be disassembled?

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the minister here in this consideration of detail debate when it is so disappointing that many of his ministerial colleagues haven't bothered to attend their particular portfolio. Thank you, Minister.

A budget needs to prioritise national security, transparency and families over bureaucracy. However, Labor's 2023 budget does the opposite. Labour's budget is very disappointing on many levels. It's especially disappointing in the Attorney-General's portfolio. It is important to protect Australia's security and prosperity a time when nations are facing a growing number of challenges. Australia's security environment is expected to continue to be complex and challenging, with key threats including terrorism, espionage and foreign interference. All too often governments are forced to act in the midst of a crisis or its immediate aftermath. It is clear that the Labor government is not planning to be proactive but, rather, reactive.

As a start, this budget takes money away from front line agencies that keep Australians safe. It gives it to lawyers, public servants and oversight bodies in true Labor government fashion. It rips almost $26 million out of our intelligence agencies to fund officials, parliamentary departments and the new oversight mechanisms. It redirects almost $130 million out of our defence budget to pay for ongoing inquiries into Afghanistan. I appreciate that the ongoing inquiries need to take place following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but why does the funding need to be plucked from the defence budget?

Furthermore, Senate estimates have only confirmed what the coalition had feared: that there is no new money, only cuts and lack of ambition for our nation's defence. Strangely enough, the Labor budget commits to protecting Australians from homegrown terrorists for just two years. What is the plan to protect Australians from homegrown terrorists after the two years are up? There is no detail on this matter.

It is simply clear that this is not a budget of a government that is serious about our national security. Why does this Labor government not prioritise national security?

This budget also has trickiness and hidden funds everywhere. This budget takes $31.8 million that the coalition committed to local and regional voices but only spends $20 million. What happened to the rest? Where has the remaining $11.8 million gone? To which department, we wonder.

The budget commits to spending legal fees on a number of international legal actions but won't disclose the amounts. Furthermore, given the recent revelations in respect to the Brittany Higgins case, it's becoming more evident that senior Labor politicians and other high-profile people are implicated in this most extraordinary affair; which begs the question: why has the Attorney-General's department not been open and transparent about the compensation payout to Ms Higgins? This is taxpayers' money. Australians want to know the details of why the payment was made and why any counterargument to the contrary was excluded. Why is this, Attorney-General?

In true Labor fashion, this is a budget for public servants, not for families struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. This budget sees an additional $95 million pumped into just one department of public servants. Once again, I assume the funding will be for a department in Canberra, not for the regions. Meanwhile, funding for programs, like the Lighthouse Project in the Family Court, which does groundbreaking work to identify the risk of family violence, drops off a cliff in 2026-27. The Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the Hon. William Alstergren, explained that the data around the Lighthouse Project demonstrates the need to expand and increase the focus on safety and welfare for families involved in the family law system. The Lighthouse Project has enabled the court to shine a light on the details of allegations raised in individual cases and provide critical, tailored support for these families. Furthermore, he has said that in many parts of the country this needs critical support. What will the Labor government commit after 2026? Or will this program be axed?

In respect to the Voice, who will make up this body? How many representatives will there be? Will they be elected or appointed? How do you qualify? How often will the body change? Will these people be paid, and, if so, how much? Will they have bureaucratic support, and, if so, to what extent? These are questions that also need to be answered by this department. (Time expired)

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want a reflection of the standard of politics being practised by the LNP right now, we just had one. Those were really grubby, nasty, unfounded accusations that were trying to dredge up really personal matters in order to make some sort of headline political issue out of them. The member should reflect on that contribution. Using this place as a forum to dredge up really unnecessary and awful political questions about someone's life and the private matters that have happened in this building is, frankly, a poor reflection on those who are seeking to politicise this.

But let's talk about more important matters. In my home city of Melbourne, over the last few months, we saw some of the most confronting scenes of bigotry and of the glorification of an old ideology that saw one of the worst chapters of human history, a chapter that Australia stood with our allies and other countries to fight against. What happened in Germany prior to and throughout the Second World War was one of the darkest chapters of humankind. My grandmother fled Germany in 1938 to come to Australia, and she did so as a stateless refugee, someone who, at four years of age, was deemed not to be an equal member of the society that she was born into. Yet Australia provided a safe place for her. It meant that she was able to create a life for herself outside of the country she was fleeing. Australia provided a safe haven of multicultural acceptance, a home and an opportunity. She was a teacher. She had multiple degrees. She was by far the smartest person in our family. She was a proud Australian and, dare I say it, was also proud of her German heritage, and felt very sad about it. I say that because the scene that we saw in Melbourne of people marching and flippantly signalling the Sieg Heil, the Nazi salute, and parading around like foolish, young, lost souls in a city that celebrates multiculturalism was as jarring and uncomfortable a scene as I can remember in all my life living in our beautiful city.

After that moment, we saw governments come together across the country to work together and to look at what legislative loopholes needed to be tightened to ensure against those sorts of ugly scenes, which stand against every fibre of the multicultural heart of our city. I want to thank the Attorney-General for his leadership and his careful consideration of these matters. I think that the legislation that the federal government has introduced this week will complement that of the state governments. As we saw on the streets of Melbourne, where people were marching up and down doing neo-Nazi glorification, those policing those matters were Victoria Police. It is appropriate for the state police to be upholding the state legislation. It is also appropriate that the federal government complements that legislation in order to ensure that there is no glorification of or profiteering from the bigoted and ugly neo-Nazi ideology that those characters were seeking to publicise in Melbourne.

Obviously, as with every piece of legislation, we need to review it and ensure that it is being implemented in practice, but I want to take this opportunity to talk about this issue and say that this is a deeply personal issue. As someone who obviously is the beneficiary of Australia's welcoming approach to my grandmother but also as someone who cares deeply about this country, as someone who wants us to remain a proudly multicultural society, as someone who wants us to uphold the law equally and proudly for all its citizens I ask the Attorney-General: why is it so important that we maintain our multicultural heart, and why is it so important to have these laws implemented for our society to benefit?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Attorney, I draw your attention to a letter dated 6 December 2022 from HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to Clayton Utz in relation to a potential civil claim, which may have been brought but never was, by Brittany Higgins against Senator Reynolds. In that letter, at paragraph 3, lawyers acting for the Commonwealth state that you personally exercised a discretion to control the conduct of Senator Reynolds's defence on the basis that the Commonwealth was paying for that defence. A mediation had been scheduled between Ms Higgins and Senator Reynolds, but, according to that letter, at your request you directed Senator Reynolds not attend the mediation, at paragraph 7, and that she not seek to do so. You also effectively directed Senator Reynolds not to make any public comment about the mediation or the civil claim against her, the Commonwealth or Senator Cash. In effect, Attorney, according to that letter, you sought to gag Senator Reynolds.

Attorney, you exercised your discretion in circumstances where you were in a clear conflict of interest. You had made numerous public statements supporting Ms Higgins, as did the now Prime Minister, as did the now Minister for Finance. It follows that, pursuant to section 83 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Regulation 2017, in circumstances where there was a conflict of interest by you, you ought not have been the individual responsible for exercising a discretion to take control of the conduct of the defence.

Attorney, why did you exercise that discretion to block Senator Reynolds's involvement at the mediation in circumstances where she may have been able to assist the Commonwealth in the preparation of its position at the mediation? Second, does the Attorney accept that he acted in so doing whilst he had a conflict of interest? Third, does the Attorney consider that the payment of Commonwealth moneys in circumstances where Senator Reynolds did not have an opportunity to challenge the allegations, albeit in a mediation, was an appropriate expenditure of taxpayers' money? Fourth, as a result of that conflict of interest will the Attorney refer himself to the National Anti-Corruption Commission? Fifth, I seek leave to table a letter from HWL Ebsworth to Dr Ashley Tsacalos of Clayton Utz lawyers dated 6 December 2022. I also seek leave to table a letter from Clayton Utz in response, dated 9 December 2022. I also seek leave to table a letter in response to that from HWL Ebsworth to Dr Ashley Tsacalos of Clayton Utz, dated 7 February 2023.

Leave not granted.

It is very disappointing that the government has taken the opportunity to not allow leave to be granted for documents which clearly show that the Attorney was in a conflict of interest when he exercised his discretion. It is very unfortunate that the government has taken this position, and the government should reconsider its position at the earliest opportunity.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute again on the consideration in detail of the Attorney-General's Department. I will be speaking about the Securing Faith-Based Places grants program. But, can I say again, I'm astonished to hear the political games being played by those opposite. Whether they have the self-awareness to acknowledge it or not, or whether there's just a whole lot of groupthink going on from those opposite, the general public think that they are losing their minds. The Liberal Party right now is going down the grubbiest and ugliest path of some of the most destructive politics, playing with somebody's life for their own political gain. I am once again urging my Liberal and National colleagues in this place to consider their actions and to consider whether or not this is an appropriate way of using the high office that they occupy. Is it beneath them to dredge up these nasty and grubby attacks or should they be focusing on issues that actually face the Australian people?

One of the really important programs brought forward throughout the recent budget process within the Attorney-General's Department is Securing Faith-Based Places. In my electorate of Macnamara, members of my community carry an increased burden because they are at risk of a range of attacks and security concerns that affect people and their ordinary business. Simply going to the mosque, going to the synagogue, going to church or going to temple as part of your expression of your own identity is a fundamental part of your right as an Australian. A situation where ordinary Australians are having to think about whether or not that is a safe thing to do is a situation where that becomes the responsibility of governments around the country. I was really pleased to see the continuation of the long record of—most of the time—bipartisan support for organisations to not only have the security infrastructure to be able to protect their people and congregants but also to carry the financial burden that is required to maintain and manage that security infrastructure as well.

I can say with absolute confidence that this federal government funding is so important to the day-to-day lives of so many people who want to go about their ordinary business, go to their place of worship and express themselves and their religious identity. I go around my own electorate and I am so proud to have a diverse and multicultural community. I also know that, for many people, that simple question of, 'Can I go and do my ordinary business in a safe way?' is a really difficult one. Frankly, it's one that I would hope wouldn't confront Australians, but it does. Therefore, it is extremely important that the government stand in and try to assist faith based schools, preschools, places of worship and community centres to protect them from crime and violent crime.

We know that the increase in far-right violence is keeping our security agencies extremely busy. We know that the far right is presenting an increased threat to many communities around Australia—not just faith based communities—as well, and it is incumbent on us to work together to ensure that Australians are available and free to participate, to express themselves, to hold on to that fundamental right of freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of participation in our great society.

I thank the Attorney-General for all of the work that has gone into this. I know it has been something that the Attorney has been working on for a few months. I ask him: why is it so important to be able to ensure that Australians can go participate freely, express themselves and express their religious identity in a way that is incumbent on this great country?

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the budget and the Attorney-General's portfolio. I will confine my remarks to the incipient National Anti-Corruption Commission. Prior to the election a year ago, I campaigned for about 10 months. Labor's pledge to create an anticorruption commission was front and centre in my own campaign, as it was throughout the country. It resonated with the community, who had had enough of the rorts under the Morrison government, which failed to bring this legislation to the parliament. After the election, we learned of the multiple secret ministries held by the former prime minister, a further example of the lack of accountability—accountability which is now expected and in fact always was expected of public officials.

Labor was elected and hit the ground running on this policy. I was honoured to be asked to be a member of the joint select committee which examined the legislation of the NACC. Over a number of weeks and with a collegial atmosphere across the parties, we covered aspects such as the powers of the commission, mental health provisions for witnesses and subjects, protections for journalists, the role of the inspector of the commission and the relationship of the NACC to other legislation. It was a useful and efficient process which saw a number of recommendations agreed to by the government. Submissions were made to the committee inquiry by a large number of individuals and organisations, including academics, human rights advocates, media, think tanks, whistleblower groups, legal practitioners and law societies, unions, psychologists and others. Their evidence was illuminating and essential, and one common theme throughout was that they all agreed on the need for a NACC.

The legislation initiated by the Attorney-General and passed by the parliament provides for an independent, powerful and measured national anticorruption commission, which will commence operation just a fortnight from now. The May budget provides $3 million over four years from 2023-24 and $0.8 million per year ongoing for the inspector of the NACC, an increase on the amount provisioned last October due to the expanded role of the NACC negotiated with the parliament during the passage of the legislation. The October budget provided $262.6 million over four years for the NACC together with $27.5 million for the transition. There was also $7.6 million over four years for financial assistance for witnesses and those seeking review. I'm pointing out these significant numbers because they demonstrate just how serious this government is about ensuring the NACC and its ancillary supporting bodies are supported and resourced appropriately to do the job that's expected by all Australians.

So why do we need the NACC? A few examples of investigations by the Western Australian CCC serve to clearly indicate why. In 2018 a CCC report revealed corruption within the North Metropolitan Health Service, with serious warnings for public sector agencies and private sector contractors. In 2021 a review of an investigation by the Water Corporation led to serious misconduct allegations in their procurement. In 2022 they reported on corrupt procurement practices and conduct in the Department of Communities. Western Australia is no more or less susceptible to these issues than any other state. It is unreasonable to expect that there aren't exactly the same issues occurring at the Commonwealth level.

To uncover systemic corruption is unsettling, but, when we confront the truth and take action to mitigate the risks of the events recurring, we gain a greater comfort and greater trust in the system of our government. In a democracy, trust in government is central as it underpins the success of every relationship, domestic and international, every contract we sign and every service we deliver.

We look forward to the commencement of the NACC. I know I speak for all my colleagues and for my constituents when I commend and congratulate the Attorney-General for his care and enthusiasm for what will be a new era of accountability in the Commonwealth government's practice. The public expect a high degree of probity from elected officials and all who deal with them, and this is exactly what this government has provided for with this legislation and these budgets.

My questions to the Attorney-General are: When exactly will the NACC commence operations? Will it actually be able to hit the ground running in July? How is the Attorney-General's Department engaging with Commonwealth agencies prior to the NACC commencing its operations? And how will the NACC deliver on Labor's important election commitments to improve transparency and accountability in the federal government?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members for Moreton, Robertson, Macnamara, Hasluck, Bradfield, Flynn and Fisher for their questions. I'll aim to deal with each in turn in the time I've got available.

In relation to the member for Moreton's questions about family law, there is, of course, no greater responsibility for an Attorney-General than keeping children safe, including those caught up in the family law system. The current family law system is confusing and leads to poor outcomes. The government's Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 will put the interests of the child at the centre. The government has the right priorities here. We are acting on the Australian Law Reform Commission report from 2019, the largest ever report into the Family Law Act, which the Morrison government sadly ignored. Our priorities are very different from those of the opposition, who met with a disgraced so-called men's rights organisation just days before voting against the government's Family Law Amendment Bill. In relation to the member's question about the merger of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, the bill now before the parliament contains provision for a review of the structure of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, to be completed next year.

In relation to the member for Robertson's questions regarding the Voice, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is about two things: listening and recognising. It can do no harm, only good. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was a generous invitation from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and the Albanese Labor government has pledged to implement it in full. We know that better policies are made when they are informed by those most affected.

In relation to the eloquent statements and questions from the member for Macnamara, he knows better than most why banning Nazi symbols is important—in response to the recent disgraceful activities that we've seen in Melbourne—as, equally, is securing faith based places, which is the subject of a program that we have recently announced with $40 million. Of course, we would all wish that we did not need such a program, that we did not need to provide faith based organisations with money to better secure their institutions, but this is all too clear. In each of his statements over the last three years, the Director-General of Security, the boss of ASIO, has spoken about the present threat from far-right extremist violent groups that pose a threat to faith based places. So, sadly, this program continues to be needed.

In relation to the member for Hasluck's questions regarding the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was, of course, a key election commitment of the Albanese government, and we have delivered on that commitment. I'm very proud to say that the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be up and running in just over two weeks, opening its doors on 1 July. There has been extensive consultation with Commonwealth departments and agencies ahead of the start day. We have an excellent commissioner in former justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Paul Brereton. We have deputy commissioners appointed, an inspector appointed and a CEO appointed, and the staff of the Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, in whole, are going to transfer as the inaugural staff of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We are going to return standards of transparency, accountability and integrity to government.

In response to the member for Fisher, the ignorance that his questions displayed about longstanding, consistent dealing with settlements and litigation by our government is extraordinary. In particular, Ms Higgins' claim was managed consistently with the Commonwealth's obligations under the legal services direction 2017, which are publicly available. I would suggest to the member for Fisher that he goes away and studies the legal service directions issued by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act 1903. They set out binding rules for Commonwealth legal work.

Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds' legal representation was managed by the Commonwealth consistent with the parliamentary business resources regulations. Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds sought and were granted assistance by the Commonwealth in respect of the claims that had been made against them. Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds were under no obligation to seek assistance from the Commonwealth but they did so, and that means that they will then be subject to the management of the whole claim by the Attorney-General, in accordance with the legal services directions. It's very disappointing that the opposition are seeking to proceed down this path. At the request of Ms Higgins, with that settlement, the parties agreed that the terms of the settlement are, and we will keep them, confidential. It is entirely consistent with everything that has been said, in particular by the Respect@Work report about the need in some cases for confidentiality.

I would say in respect, finally, of the member for Bradfield's statements or questions— (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill, taken as a whole and agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.