Milton Dick

The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking the call on a point of order.

Paul Fletcher

I want to move a motion.

Milton Dick

Is it relevant to this item of business?

Paul Fletcher

It is relevant.

Milton Dick

I will hear what the Manager of Opposition Business has to say.

Paul Fletcher

I want to move a motion that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent me moving the following motion immediately: that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The reason that this is urgent is that the government has flouted proper procedure. So we are suggesting an appropriate and proper procedure.

Milton Dick

Alright. I've heard—

Paul Fletcher

We're doing that in the spirit of friendship across the parliament but also offering some guidance—

Milton Dick

The manager—

Paul Fletcher

on how things ought to be run properly, instead of this chaotic, end-of-year—

Milton Dick

The manager has made his point. Just pause for a moment. I had called the item on; the Clerk had read the order. We do need to make sure that, in between items—the Leader of the House on a point of order?

Tony Burke

Mr Speaker, a suspension is an abuse if it simply revisits a decision that the House has just made. The most recent resolution of the House was that we would bring on item 14. We had already decided, in the last few minutes, to not do what the Manager of Opposition Business is proposing.

Milton Dick

Further to the point of order?

Paul Fletcher

Just on that point, Mr Speaker, very specifically: this motion is materially different from the previous one because it doesn't propose a method of not dealing with this; it very constructively proposes the right way to deal with it, which is that it should be made an order of the day for the next sitting. That's the perfectly appropriate and normal and natural process, and that is what we are suggesting, in a spirit of cooperation and with the same constructive approach that we have always brought to these matters—which, sadly, has not always been reciprocated.

Milton Dick

Alright. I'll deal with—

Honourable members interjecting—

Everyone can resume their seats if they wish to interject; otherwise, we'll just keep everyone quiet for the moment while we deal with this matter. The House has made a determination to bring the item on; I've called the Clerk; he has listed that now. The difficulty I have is: if people want to move suspensions or arrangements, they need to do it between items—that's the issue. We have dealt with this kind of situation before, where variations on a theme have occurred, over and over again, and the House would get no work done if we were just continually to keep revisiting the same topic over and over again.

I've called the Clerk. We're going to bring this item on. If we want to go back and visit that issue, it will have to be done between items, and in a slightly different set of words that I'll work with the manager on to deal with that.

Order. The member for Jagajaga. It's not a laughing matter. Order. The item has been called on. We can revisit this, after this item has been dealt with, to get through. If people want to do suspensions, right across the chamber, we'll do it in between items, and we can work to make sure that everyone gets what they need to achieve. So the question now is that the bill be read a second time. I'll put the question. Those of that opinion say aye—

Honourable members interjecting—

Against, no—

Honourable members interjecting—

Paul Fletcher

Can you restate the question?

Milton Dick

Yes, that's okay. We'll restate the question. I'll explain it to the House again, so everyone knows. We're not dealing with your suspension again. We can revisit that, if the House needs to. The Clerk has called the item on. I'm stating the question. The question is that the bill be read a second time. So, if someone wishes to speak, they need to rise to their feet and give their speech to the House. And I give the call—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I give the call to the shadow Treasurer.

Angus Taylor

Labor has had 2½ years to make things fairer for farmers and families—2½ years, and they have comprehensively failed. I see the Treasurer leaving the chamber, because he has comprehensively failed to make things fairer for farmers and families.

Milton Dick

The Minister for Resources will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Brand then left the chamber.

We are not having that sort of behaviour and that sort of interjection from people outside of their places. This may be the last day, but everyone is going to be treated with respect and we're all going to follow the standing orders. It's the least we can do. Now the shadow Treasurer is going to be heard in silence on this item, and anyone who interjects now—firm action will be taken. The shadow Treasurer has the call.

Long debate text truncated.

Andrew Wilkie

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that the Government is refusing to even debate the need for a gambling advertising ban; and

(2) condemns the Government for its complete disregard of the community's desire to ban gambling advertising and for the terrible harm such advertising facilitates.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion—That the House:

(1) notes that the Government is refusing to even debate the need for a gambling advertising ban; and

(2) condemns the Government for its complete disregard of the community's desire to ban gambling advertising and for the terrible harm such advertising facilitates.

I have not seen a more egregious and shocking abandonment of the public interest than this government's refusal to implement a ban on gambling advertising. I can only deduce that this government remains absolutely scared stiff of the gambling companies, absolutely scared stiff of the TV and media companies and absolutely scared stiff of the major sporting codes who receive a payment from the gambling companies every time a bet is laid on a game.

This government simply does not care about the community interest. This government does not care that incessant gambling advertising has the effect of grooming children for a lifetime of gambling and, for many of those children, many years of gambling addiction. This government does not care two hoots about the way the incessant and continual gambling advertising is ruining our enjoyment of watching the telly, going on a device and, particularly, watching a game of sport. They simply don't care about the human toll of gambling addiction, and that's ultimately what this is about—it's the human toll of gambling addiction. Gambling addiction ruins lives, ruins families, ruins businesses and takes lives.

I think of a constituent of mine I met just recently. This constituent is a recovering gambling addict. He cannot watch TV. He cannot watch a streaming service. He can't even surf the net, because every gambling ad is a trigger for his addiction. Why don't we care about such hurt in the community? Why is the government so beholden to the gambling companies, so beholden to the media companies and so beholden to the major sporting codes? I'll tell you why: because they're gutless. They're completely and utterly gutless, and the arguments that are put up to defend their position are just undiluted filth. They do not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

It's not too complex an issue to address. We have a blueprint. The Peta Murphy inquiry gave us the blueprint. It did the work. It heard from the witnesses. It teased out the issue. It gave us the solution. We treat that committee's work, all the witnesses who fronted that committee and the committee's chair with contempt when we throw that report in the bin and say, 'Nuh, we'll worry about it later.'

There are arguments that it will be the death of commercial TV. Well, I say to the commercial TV companies—the companies, by the way, who are refusing to report the debate about banning gambling advertising—that if your business model relies on facilitating gambling addiction then your business model is broken. You don't deserve to be in business if your business model relies on stoking gambling addiction and grooming children for a lifetime of gambling in the full knowledge that some of those children will grow up to be gambling addicts and some of them, sadly, will even take their lives as a direct result of it. The arguments that are put to us are reminiscent of the arguments in the debate around the ban on tobacco advertising in the 1970s and 1980s. Remember that? We were told that, if we banned cigarette advertising, it would be the end of cricket. Good God! What an absurdity! That argument back then in the seventies and eighties was no more ridiculous than the arguments that are being put forward by the government now.

Heavens! We heard the Prime Minister in Perth a couple of months ago say the problem is poker machines. Okay, then do something about poker machines! Just, for heaven's sake, do something! Use the tax powers. Use the Corporations Act. Use all the levers at your disposal, instead of just kicking the can down the road and not giving two hoots about the hundreds of thousands of Australians who are either gambling addicts or recovering gambling addicts.

While I'm at it, let me make a comment about the relevant minister. The relevant minister is refusing to drive gambling advertising reform. The relevant minister failed at the attempt to introduce a misinformation and disinformation act. The same minister is driving this ludicrous proposal to ban social media for people under the age of 16, despite the good that social media does as well as the harm. I reckon the minister should go. That the government is keeping that minister on the frontbench down there just beggars belief and is part of the problem. I will leave it at that. Hopefully in the remaining time there might be contributions from other honourable members.

Scott Buchholz

Is the motion seconded?

Andrew Wallace

I'm very pleased to second the motion. I want to acknowledge the member for Clark and the great work he's done since he's been in this place about antigambling. A lot of people ask me why I am so anti gambling. I think it stems from when I was young apprentice. I remember as a young kid—I was probably 18 or 19 years old—and we were reroofing a TAB. Here I am, on the roof, reroofing this TAB, and I saw countless young men coming in over the course of two or three days—in and out, in and out. I thought, 'I wonder how much they are actually losing?' It turns out we are losing somewhere between $25 billion and $32 billion a year. That's 12 University of the Sunshine Coast hospitals that could be built.

What really saddens me—and this goes directly to the issue—is this government's failure and its cowardice to deal with sports-betting advertising. When's the last time you had a conversation with your son, daughter or grandson about sport without them talking about the odds? When I was a kid—it was a while ago now—we used to swap footy cards. We'd know who the first person was who'd kicked a goal and who won man of the match and all those sorts of details. But, now, because of the way that the gambling companies have infiltrated sport, it's all about the odds. Young kids do not seem to be able to differentiate between gambling and sport, and that breaks my heart. I think that is really, really sad.

Australia is a sporting nation. We love sport. We play sport. We watch sport. But we do it to win the game, not to gamble. But these particularly insidious international gambling companies flood our televisions with this incessant advertising. I can't tell you how many times I have received emails from mums and dads—but usually mums, it has to be said—who plead with me as a federal member of parliament to do something to stop this connection between gambling ads and sport. I think it was the Leader of the Opposition's budget in reply speech about two years ago when he stood up and said that, if he was elected Prime Minister at the next election, he would do something about this. The coalition, once again, like for social media and for so many other things, have been dragging this government around kicking and screaming about policy. And yet, today still, the Minister for Communications is nowhere to be seen.

Does everybody remember how when Peta Murphy died—God rest her soul—the government held Peta in such high regard and said this report was so important? Where are those comments now? I worked with Peta Murphy on a previous committee—the social policy and legal affairs committee. She worked with me; I worked with her on similar reforms. But where is the government today in honouring her legacy and leadership on gambling reform? They're nowhere to be seen. Why? It's because this government is utterly weak. It is weak on every level and every policy. It is absolutely caught by the big gambling companies. It stands condemned. It needs to stand up, grow a backbone and get these laws passed. (Time expired)

Ged Kearney

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Pat Conaghan

At the request of the member for Farrer, I move opposition amendment (1) as circulated in her name:

(1) Schedule 2, item 65, page 60 (line 3), omit "may", substitute "must".

Anika Wells

The government does not support this very technical amendment. I can confirm for the member for Farrer that the government is drafting rules related to this bill which will be released for consultation next year.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Andrew Gee

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business order of the day relating to the Doctors for the Bush Bill 2024 being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for final determination of this House.

This bill needs to be debated urgently. There is a crisis unfolding in rural and regional Australia. It's a health crisis. It's a disaster unfolding before our eyes, and its consequences are absolutely devastating. This is an urgent matter. My Doctors for the Bush Bill actually does something about this.

All over central-western NSW and around country Australia, doctors are leaving the bush and they are not being replaced. Around the Calare electorate, the rural doctor shortage crisis is being felt in communities big and small. Gulgong had four doctors but now doesn't have any doctors at all, and this is putting pressure on larger towns like Mudgee. It has two medical practices and they are both no longer accepting any new patients. Practices in communities like Canowindra and Molong have also lost doctors and they are also closing their books to new patients or adopting a locals-only policy for appointments. In Wellington, it now takes two months to see a GP. The impact this crisis is having on the health of country people is very concerning and very shocking. It was only recently that I spoke to one local doctor, who said that they recently met one patient who had advanced cancer and had not been able to get in to see a doctor and had therefore missed out on vital treatment.

The rural doctor shortage crisis has been made much worse because country areas no longer have priority for overseas trained doctors. Before July 2022, if an overseas trained doctor or international medical graduate, as they are known, wanted to practise in Australia and bill Medicare they had to work in a country area for 10 years, unless that was reduced because they worked in more remote areas. These country areas were and still are known as distribution priority areas. For many rural areas, this policy was a lifeline, providing badly needed access to GPs and basic medical services. But all that changed in 2022 when the Labor government upended the Distribution Priority Area system and, for the first time, allowed outer metropolitan areas to become distribution priority areas.

For the Australian public tuning in now, all parts of Australia are classified according to what is called the Modified Monash Model. There are seven categories, ranging from MM 1, which is a major city, to MM 7, which is very remote. Previously areas MM 3 to MM 7 were distribution priority areas. To give people context, large regional centres like Bathurst and Orange are classified as MM 3; Lithgow and Mudgee are MM 4; Molong, Gulgong and Canowindra are MM 5. The government has now declared MM 2 areas as distribution priority areas, therefore destroying the priority for overseas trained doctors that country areas once had. This means that areas such as Fairfield, Hornsby and Warringah and the outer suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne now have the same priority as country areas for overseas trained doctors.

When you look at the map, it's quite clear that the whole state of New South Wales is basically one big Distribution Priority Area except for the inner suburbs of Sydney. People in the country cannot understand how this could possibly be, but the Doctors for the Bush Bill, which I introduced today, remedies this blatant unfairness by restoring the priority that country areas should have by legislating that Modified Monash Model areas MM 1 and MM 2 can't be classified as distribution priority areas. It will mean that country areas and country Australia once again has priority for international medical graduates. This restores the Distribution Priority Area system to that which existed before the last election. I would therefore expect that every single coalition MP would be lining up to support this bill. It will be very telling if they don't, and I would be very surprised and disappointed if their support isn't forthcoming.

In terms of the urgency of this matter, you only need to speak to the residents of the Calare electorate to hear what they have to say about the urgency of this issue. Carlo Nazeti writes:

A lack of consistent GP services has left many residents in distress. For example, some have shared their experiences on social media of running out of critical medications, such as thyroid medication, because local doctors are either unavailable or not accepting new patients. This level of neglect is putting lives at risk, and it is unacceptable in a country like Australia.

Mr Nazeti also writes:

It is critical that the government steps in to address this crisis before more lives are put at risk.

I have received correspondence from Ian Marsh, who is the president of the Gulgong RSL sub-branch. He is worried this shortage will mean, and he puts it bluntly, that people will die:

… from not being diagnosed or treated for conditions if they cannot get a GP appointment or a misdiagnosed through telemedicine or a subject to haphazard management of chronic conditions through lack of continuity of care.

He says:

I am sure you would not accept this in your home city or town and nor would you like to see your loved ones being treated in this system.

Helen Chisholm has written to me. She has said that she spoke to a local doctor in the Mudgee area and:

… he advised me that the GP shortage is now putting extra strain on the Mudgee Hospital as many people can no longer see their GP in a timely manner, if at all.

And it does not stop there. Sue Stanmore has written to me. She said:

I'm writing to you in regard of the sub standard health system we have here in the Mudgee District.

She goes on to state the surgeries in the Mudgee area have 'closed their books' and:

… Gulgong has no Dr's at all. With the growing community what are we expected to do, it's a joke in this day & age.

This highlights the urgency of this matter and of addressing the rural doctor shortage crisis. There is a Change.org petition we have started, which already has 13,000 signatures or thereabouts, which basically calls on the government to end the rural doctor storage crisis. So this bill that I have put into the House today is very important, because it actually takes action to do something about it.

As I said to this House earlier today, it's predicted that, in Australia, we will be short 10,600 GPs by 2031. At the same time, demand for GP services is expected to increase by 58 per cent over the next decade.

There is a fundamental unfairness and inequality in access to health services in this country. Out in the Central West of New South Wales, we call the Great Dividing Range the 'sandstone curtain', but it is a great divide in so many other ways as well. We need to actually take action, because the cold hard truth is that the further away you live from the city the shorter your life expectancy will be. That's the truth of the matter. With close to one-third of the Australian population living in the regions, how can this possibly be? The answer is simple: country people have less access to doctors, such as GPs, who are often the first point of contact when someone feels sick or has a health problem. This crisis is adding more strain onto an already overstretched hospital and emergency department system. We need to take action on it straightaway.

I commend this motion to the House, and I commend the Doctors for the Bush Bill 2024, to achieve better health outcomes for country patients. This situation is urgent. It's at crisis point, and it's critical that the House deals with this issue without delay.

Maria Vamvakinou

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Bob Katter

Yes, I second the motion. It's not entirely germane to what we are proposing here, but there were three Katter boys—my father and his two brothers. Their parents had gone out to their region in a stagecoach in the 1870s. Two of the boys died as a result of the tyranny of distance. My uncle was injured in a football match—and this is where the story does not really pertain to doctors in the bush. By the time the Qantas aeroplane—and my grandfather was a major shareholder in those days—came back from Longreach to Cloncurry and then took him from Cloncurry to Brisbane, it was too late. Sadly, he died. If the aeroplane had been at Cloncurry, he'd have been alright. So he died as a result of the tyranny of distance. My father had cancer. He should have gone down for the operation, but the airline strike came. He wouldn't jump the queue and he was in no condition to drive down. By the time he got down there, 3½ months later, it was too late; the cancer had got away. So he also died as a result of the tyranny of distance.

There are people dying every day in Australia because there is no local doctor. The actual statistics that were done some years ago indicated that, where you've got a thousand people in a town without a doctor, there will be a death once a year. So there's an actual figure that we can put upon this.

The honourable member quite rightly pointed out, when he moved to call on this legislation, that—and I could not believe this—when the very special help was given to country areas to help them to attract doctors, that included Cairns! It's one of the most salubrious places in the world to live. And it's isolated? Heavens! If Cairns is isolated, God help the rest of Australia! The honourable member is pointing out that most of Sydney is in the same category as far western New South Wales. How can that be? The government, whatever government it was, with good intentions, moved the legislation, and some serious lobbying by vested interests got them to change the legislation. So the minister quite rightly brings his attention to bear upon this fact.

For six or seven years of my life, I carried the names of six doctors around with me because, every time we lost a doctor in Julia Creek, I would ring up England or, I don't know, America. There was a place in the Middle East where a doctor was available. He's a good bloke. I had six doctors overseas that I could call to come in because I was determined that Julia Creek would not be without a doctor. Julia Creek had over a thousand people in those days and now it's got very much under a thousand people. One of the reasons people leave is that there are no doctors there. Yes, they send a doctor out for four or five days a week from Mount Isa or Townsville or somewhere, but that's not having a doctor there.

In our day, though we didn't have many doctors coming through the Brisbane university, which was the only university in Queensland, those doctors were, for two years, bound to go where the government sent them if they wanted to become qualified to practise in Queensland. We should return to that. I wouldn't say for two years but I'd say for a year and a quarter. The government puts a million dollars into you. If you graduate as a doctor, the government has put a million dollars into making you a doctor, and it will give you the right to earn a squillion dollars a year. If you've got the right to practise as a doctor, you'll be a very rich person. If the government gives you that right and gives you a gift of a million dollars to get that right, then I think you owe something to the people of regional Australia.

I say regional Australia because it's not just the Julia Creeks that we're talking about here. We're talking about the Mareebas. Mareeba's only 30 kilometres from Cairns, yet their situation is grim. (Time expired)

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment to the second reading motion, as moved by the member for Ryan, be agreed to.

Kate Chaney

I am concerned about any injection of funds that could be inflationary at this time, when inflation is having a huge impact on cost of living, but childcare workers are some of the lowest paid workers in the country. In a budget of more than $600 billion, it seems reasonable that we should be able to find a few billion to pay women well and value our children's early education. I am concerned that there's no allocation of funds for this special account, despite the estimated cost of the grant program being $3.6 billion for the next few years. We'll have to wait for the annual appropriations bill to see how much money is put into this account, but the giving of grants is not dependent on funds being put into this account.

It's possible that the payments have been set up through this special account as a way of making it harder for an alternative government to take the pay rise away from childcare workers if the government doesn't win next year's election. But setting this up without allocating funds does feel like kicking the can down the road.

My last concern is in relation to the short-term timeframe. The bill is hazy about what happens after the first two years. The worker retention payment is considered an interim payment while the Fair Work Commission finalises its gender undervaluation review of priority awards and the government considers the recent ACCC and Productivity Commission reports on early childhood education and care. If the government wants to see long-term structural reform to pay feminised industries better wages and drive a long-term improvement in the quality of care, the government will need to come clean about how it would fund this in the long term. If this increase is not going to be paid through higher fees in the long term, we need to have an open discussion about the social and economic benefit of high-quality early childhood education and care. Without the support of the coalition, this may go the way of the similar Early Years Quality Fund, which was ended with Tony Abbott not supporting that program.

Another concern is the broad discretionary powers created. The government can make grants and there isn't much guidance on the use of these powers in the legislation. I am hoping that these and other issues are addressed in the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's report, which I believe came out today.

Beyond the changes made in this bill, further reform is needed. There is some momentum towards creating universal access to quality early childhood education and care. This is obviously a big change and would require a pathway to get there, but it's the sort of bold thinking that has the potential to set us on a pathway to a better educated and are more fully productive population. I recognise that this would require nearly 50,000 early childhood education and care graduates a year by 2030, more than double recent graduating numbers. This will take time, but it seems to me to be the right direction.

The other reform needed is in relation to the activity test. The activity test is based on an assumption that early childhood education and care is a benefit for parents, not for kids. Recognising the benefits for kids, especially from lower socioeconomic families, leads to the conclusion that reforming the activity test would have long-term benefits. I would like to see the activity test removed, relaxed or substantially reconfigured in line with recommendations from the Productivity Commission, the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, the ACCC, Thrive By Five and Early Childhood Australia.

In conclusion, I support this bill as one step towards quality, accessible and affordable early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care is important for kids and families. Like workers in many traditionally feminised industries, childcare workers are underpaid. We need to attract a quality workforce to educate and care for our kids, and paying them better is a good start. There are a few issues with this bill that I hope are addressed in the current Senate inquiry. In particular, the bill takes a short-term approach and doesn't allocate money to the special account being established, so it's kicking the can down the road on longer term reform and costs. The broad powers in the grant-making laws leave a lot to the government's discretion. So it's appropriate that the bill be reconsidered in a few years in light of a number of reviews currently underway.

While you couldn't say that the bill will have no inflationary impact, increasing the pay for our lowest-earning women seems an appropriate decision. Having more women here in parliament means that we are starting to correct the long-term gender bias in how we value different types of jobs. Paying childcare workers better is a good step, but I urge the government and the opposition to be bold in thinking about universal childcare access as a step to a better educated population and greater workforce participation for women.

Clare O'Neil

I want to thank the member for Curtin for her typically thoughtful discussion with regard to this bill, the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024, that is before the parliament. It's a really important one, Speaker. You and I are Labor people who got into parliament to try to fight inequality and make sure that the quality of life of people in our country isn't defined by their income or indeed by the family that they grew up in. I think when you looked at these matters of social justice and inequality a generation ago you probably would have looked at wage justice and these fundamental things that affect the lives of Australians as adults. But the more we understand about how the life cycle of poverty continues across generations the more obvious it is that the best time for us to focus on is those first thousand days in a child's life.

We don't need any more evidence about this point. There is study after study here in Australia and overseas that show us that, if we intervene in the life of a child, we can radically reshape their trajectory just by making sure that they get off to the right start. That's got an element of health care. It's got an element of supporting parents who might be in a really disadvantaged situation. But probably the most important thing that we can do through politics and through this chamber is making sure that we provide really quality early learning to every single Australian child. They expect and deserve nothing less from this chamber and from this amazing country of ours than for us to be able to extend that generosity to young people by supporting them through those first thousand days.

What we know about early learning in our country is that we're on a real journey here. We've had some periods of time where we've had Australian governments that have thought about this as merely child care, someone taking care of your kids while the families went to work. We as the Labor Party and a Labor government have been working over a number of decades now to really switch the mindset up here. This is not just about looking after children; this is about starting their journey of education in the most positive and powerful way while they take those first steps as really young children and babies.

One of the things that really sticks in my mind in the work that I have done in this area is looking at the different ways in which children who grew up in really advantaged families and really disadvantaged families experience language. There are some studies that have been done overseas that show that there are literally 20 million fewer words heard by children who grew up in very low income and disadvantaged households versus children who grew up in different kinds of households. As Australians, we can't tolerate these things. We've got to intervene, and it is certainly the role of government to reach in and try to give every support and assistance to those children to make sure that they're standing on a platform of support of the Australian people.

The bill before the parliament is about the workers who support these incredible young Australians to get off to the very best start. I'm sure I'm not alone here, but one of the most absolutely fantastic things that we get to do in our work as members of parliament is visit childcare centres where these young Aussies are getting taught by these incredible people, who are spending every day going to work and helping children form their first words and helping them learn through active participation. I'm so lucky to see my three children have had that opportunity. These workers are as good as gold, but for too long the Australian people and the Australian government have not been giving them the rewards that they deserve. We know that they are doing essential work to help build a great future for our country, yet they are being remunerated as though that work were not important, and that's not good enough.

We are on a journey here of making sure those workers in our economy—our aged-care workers, our childcare workers and our disability workers—are getting properly recognised for the support that they give to other Australians. I've got the government whip just behind me here, who has spent her life in education. Don't get her started on the value of educators! I really want to emphasise for the parliament and for people listening at home that Labor understands how difficult and important this work is. If you're a parent of young children, as I am, you know that it is no mean feat to go to work every day and try to educate a whole classroom of three- or four-year-olds, but this is what these people do every day, and they deserve to be properly remunerated. That is what this bill is about.

I want to mention some of the gender issues that lie at the heart of this. It's not something that the parliament is always comfortable talking about, but we've got to address this. We have one of the most gendered workforces in the entire world in our beautiful country of Australia. A lot of people wouldn't believe that, but, if you look at a type of work like construction, you'll find that somewhere around nine in 10 workers in parts of that industry are male. If you look at something like childcare workers, you'll find that almost nine in 10 of those workers are female. This is really important because what we see is that those parts of our economy where women are really dominant tend to be the most underpaid parts of the economy. Of course, we all understand why that is. Historically, women's work has not been sufficiently valued. For a long time, generations of people have talked about that work as though women were going to work out of the goodness of their hearts. That's not respectful, and it's not right, and that's why our government is trying to correct it.

I'll make a final point. Over the last couple of days, the Prime Minister made a series of outstanding announcements about the other end of the education spectrum in making sure that young people who make the fantastic choice—a choice we want them to make—to go on to further study aren't penalised in the way that they are today, and that, for those fantastic young people who want to go into trades, we want to support you. The announcement to make 100,000 fee-free TAFE places available every single year will have transformative effects on our economy and on the lives of all of those young people who take that opportunity.

I want the parliament to know that it is not about picking out one year or one part of our education system; it's about saying that, as a government, we have a special role in helping our youngest Aussies get the right start in life, supporting them all the way through that arch and through to their TAFE training and their university education. As a government, we have an amazing offering on education. It's something that I'm very proud of as a Labor Party member and a member of this House for a long time now.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.

Andrew Wilkie

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 57 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include recommendations for any sanctions (including parliamentary sanctions) to be imposed on the respondent.

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:

(1A) If the Privileges Committee's decision is not consistent with any recommendations made by the decision-maker or review panel (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must:

(a) be made in writing; and

(b) set out the reasons for not following those recommendations; and

(c) be tabled in the House at the time the Committee reports it decision.

The Future Made in Australia Bill is a welcome step in the right direction from the government, one which establishes strong foundations for world-leading Australian renewable energy, manufacturing and export industries. However, at present, there is a glaring loophole in the bill that needs closing—that is, that despite being touted as a game-changing investment in clean energy industries, jobs and exports, under this legislation there is no requirement for these investments to be clean and green. The Australian Conservation Foundation notes this in their submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill. I thank them for working with me to redraft this amendment which closes the loophole by ensuring that neither stream of the national interest framework can be used to invest in or support fossil fuel, nuclear power or carbon capture and storage.

My constituents in Tasmania and, indeed, millions of Australians right across the country, know we're running out of time to reduce emissions and mitigate the worst of the impacts of climate change. As I said before many times, the fossil fuel industry is rapidly strangling our planet and it is past time this government acted with urgency on the climate emergency. It is simply unconscionable that Australia is currently one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels in the world. In fact, we are currently third behind Russia and the United States. It seems all this government has done so far is double down, but most Australian know it makes neither environmental nor economic sense to continue to approve and invest in fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and infrastructure. Even the International Energy Agency tells us that oil, gas and coal demand is expected to peak this decade, which means fossil fuel projects are rapidly becoming stranded assets. At the same time, at COP-28 just last year, world leaders agreed to accelerate efforts towards net zero in a just, orderly and equitable way.

It has become all too clear that neither the climate crisis nor the economic reality leave room for continued misguided investments in fossil fuels. That's why my amendment ensures that they aren't eligible for support and investment under the Future Made in Australia framework. The same goes for carbon capture and storage. To be clear, I don't object to the technology in principle but do I hold concerns that, in its current state, it's unproven, and, in too many cases, it is used an expensive smoke screen to hide the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

The last issue my amendment deals with is nuclear power. It's increasingly clear that when talking about a clean net zero future made in Australia, nuclear can't be a part of the solution. We have seen report after report saying nuclear is too slow and too costly to play any significant role in Australia's transition to net zero, not to mention the risks associated with waste management. No. Instead, we need to be prioritising our efforts and seizing on our natural advantages to ensure we don't throw good money after bad. I'm optimistic about these advantages and I'm optimistic about our ability to pull off a just transition and meet our net zero commitments.

Australians know there is so much opportunity for us in the energy transition because we're blessed with abundant clean energy resources and we have a highly skilled and educated workforce. In other words, we have what it takes to be a clean energy super power and to lead the world in this economic and environmental transition. The potential benefits for job creation and skills development, local communities and the environment are obvious to anyone paying attention. We in this place need to make sure it's set up and powered by renewable energy industries and not off the back of continued investment in climate-wrecking fossil fuels or greenwashed non-solutions such as nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

I would love to believe we can trust this and future governments not to use this legislation to prop up climate-damaging industries but I've been around long enough to know that trust in government is built on solid mechanisms of transparency and accountability. That's exactly what my amendment provides for, and I urge all members to support it.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is: the amendment moved by the honourable member for Clark be agreed to.

Peter Dutton

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That this House:

(1) notes that the Albanese Government has so far granted almost 3,000 visitor visas to individuals from the Gaza warzone;

(2) notes that in question time yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed that his government has done this under 'exactly the same arrangements as previous offshore refugee and humanitarian visa grants';

(3) notes that this is not true;

(4) notes that for the Syrian refugee intake, rigorous security checks were conducted prior to arrival in Australia at a number of key visa processing points, this included the collection and checking of biometric data against Australia's security agencies and those of our international partners, these checks were supplemented by interview with Australian departmental officers, where claims and identity were assessed;

(5) notes that these measures have not been undertaken under the Albanese government's change of policy to grant visitor visas, including to people who have expressed sympathy for the Hamas terrorist organisation; and

(6) therefore requires the Prime Minister immediately attend the chamber and explain why he misled this House.

Leave not granted.

It's no surprise that the government would seek to gag this debate, because it's not a debate that they want to have. This is an issue of national significance, and the Prime Minister should be here—

Milton Dick

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. You don't have leave. There's no motion. The Leader of the Opposition will need to move a motion rather than just giving a speech. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Peter Dutton

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion—

That this House:

(1) notes that the Albanese Government has so far granted almost 3,000 visitor visas to individuals from the Gaza warzone;

(2) notes that in question time yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed that his government has done this under 'exactly the same arrangements as previous offshore refugee and humanitarian visa grants';

(3) notes that this is not true;

(4) notes that for the Syrian refugee intake, rigorous security checks were conducted prior to arrival in Australia at a number of key visa processing points, this included the collection and checking of biometric data against Australia's security agencies and those of our international partners, these checks were supplemented by interview with Australian departmental officers, where claims and identity were assessed;

(5) notes that these measures have not been undertaken under the Albanese government's change of policy to grant visitor visas, including to people who have expressed sympathy for the Hamas terrorist organisation; and

(6) therefore requires the Prime Minister immediately attend the chamber and explain why he misled this House.

This is an egregious breach of what is in our country's best interests. This Prime Minister has one charge, the first and most important charge: to keep our country safe, and he has lost control of the national security agenda. The Prime Minister of our country came into this parliament yesterday and clearly demonstrated that he had no idea what our security agencies were doing. He had no idea how to manage the program. What we know is that this is an Andrew Giles special. Andrew Giles, the disgraced and now sacked immigration minister, brought in 152 people—

Milton Dick

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will pause. The member for Newcastle, on a point of order?

Sharon Claydon

I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition to refer to members by their correct titles.

Milton Dick

The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will use the correct titles.

Peter Dutton

The disgraced and now sacked Minister Giles was responsible for releasing 152 hardened criminals, noncitizens, from immigration detention into the Australian community when he didn't need to do so.

Government members interjecting—

I hear the cries opposite. Go and talk to the elderly lady in Perth who was attacked by one of these people who had been released by Minister Giles and to the others who have fallen victim to these hardened criminals since they were unnecessarily released by the Albanese government.

Not only was that botched, but now we know that 3,000 people were issued with visas and that 1,300 of them have been allowed into our country—not under the refugee and humanitarian program but on visitor visas. Some people have tried to equate this to the number of visitor visas that have been issued to people from Israel, which is an absolute outrage. When comparing people who come from Israel on a visitor visa, the comparable statistic is to the number of people who have come from London or the number of people who have come from New Zealand or the number of people who have come from Jordan on a visitor visa to our country. Israel is not run by a terrorist organisation. Hamas is a listed terrorist organisation.

A government member interjecting

I notice the Labor member there scoffing at that suggestion, but the fact is that Hamas is a listed terrorist organisation. The Israeli government is a democratically elected government. They are an ally of our country. They have helped thwart terrorist attacks in our country. If you look at public polling in the Gaza strip today, between 40 and 75 per cent of people have sympathy for the Hamas terrorist organisation. Imagine if the Howard government or the Morrison government had suggested that we would bring people in who are sympathisers to Saddam Hussein or to al-Qaeda or to ISIL or to ISIS. There would rightly have been public outrage and condemnation by the Labor Party. But the Labor Party has changed their policy to allow sympathisers of a listed terrorist organisation to come here under a visitor visa. It's without precedent.

I know that Minister Burke has been appointed to clean up the mess of Minister Giles, but the Prime Minister needs to come into this chamber to show the leadership and the strength of character that so far he has failed to demonstrate. The level of antisemitism in our country is at a record high. People in the Jewish community feel unsafe, and the director-general of ASIO has rightly raised significant concerns. The problem is that the Albanese government is contributing to social disharmony and to disruption in this country at a time when it's certainly not required. The Prime Minister has made a bad decision.

The Prime Minister in this chamber yesterday misled the Australian public when he said that what is happening today is akin to what happened when we brought people in from Syria. It is not. When we brought people in from Syria, we staged them in northern Iraq. We brought people in, or we assessed people who were in Jordan and Oman. I was criticised at the time as the minister because 12 months down the track we hadn't brought the full number in, and that's because we were testing people's verification of the claims that they were making and of their identity and whether or not they were on databases that the United States held. The United States held the intelligence because they had fingerprints and DNA of IEDs and the like out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan.

Ironically for this government, the Israeli government and security services would have the most significant holdings on those people who are sympathetic to Hamas and those people who would have been involved in, connected with or sympathetic to the attacks on kibbutzim and the attacks at the Supernova music festival, where 1,200 people were killed and over a hundred are still being held in the tunnel network.

That people could be brought from that region and that people could not be interviewed or that the government didn't have a process in place where there were face-to-face interviews is a complete and utter abrogation and failure of leadership of this Prime Minister. The fact that this Prime Minister has not come from his office this morning down to this chamber to answer these claims and to defend himself shows how weak he is.

The Australian public get it. They know that this country's been made less safe by Anthony Albanese. They know that this Prime Minister doesn't have the strength of character to provide the leadership to see our country through an uncertain period. For the Prime Minister now to have created this mess and not to be here to explain how he's going to clean it up shows how out of touch this Prime Minister has become and how he has failed his basic obligations as the Prime Minister of this country. Our country deserves strong leadership and the ability to make tough decisions which are in our country's best interests.

This is not against people of a particular religious belief. This is not against people of a particular political persuasion. This is about keeping our country safe, and Anthony Albanese has failed the Australian public and he should stand condemned. The fact that the Prime Minister cannot come to this chamber and provide an explanation and an apology for his misleading yesterday is a true reflection on his poor character. We deserve more as a country, and certainly every Australian deserves to feel safe but today, because of Anthony Albanese, the Australian public is less safe.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Dan Tehan

Yes, the motion is seconded. Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister was asked a very simple question by the shadow minister for trade and tourism:

Can the Prime Minister guarantee that no individual who participated in or supported the October 7 Hamas terror attacks—the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust—has been granted a visa by his government?

In responding to that question, he said, 'Exactly the same security arrangements as previous offshore refugee and humanitarian visa grants had been followed.' Yet when the member for Flinders asked the new Minister for Immigration the follow-up question, 'Have any visas for individuals coming from the Gaza war zone been granted without an in-person interview?' the new immigration minister could not answer that question.

What he did was show that the Prime Minister had misled this parliament, because he had said all processes had been followed as they had been done previously. And they hadn't, because you did not do in-person interviews, as was the normal process that has been followed. That's why the Prime Minister should come in here right now and correct the record. This goes to his fundamental responsibility: keeping the Australian community safe. The sad reality from this government is that time and time again we have seen them failing at this No. 1 duty to keep the Australian community safe.

'Why are we asking these questions?' you might ask. We're asking these questions because the minister who was then in charge has shown that he was not up to the job. All this was taking place under the former minister, Minister Giles. We know that when Minister Giles was brought under pressure he was prepared to say things in this chamber which later FOI records have shown were not true. Now we have the Prime Minister doing exactly the same thing. We know Minister Giles didn't live up to the ministerial code of conduct that the Prime Minister put in place. Now the Prime Minister won't live up to his own code of conduct. That is why he should be condemned.

What is at stake here? It's quite clear that what is at stake here is the safety of the Australian community. If you fail to undertake proper security checks then you leave the Australian community open to all sorts of possibilities that could occur. We've seen what has happened previously when the government has failed to keep the Australian people safe. As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out, we have a victim in Perth who was, sadly, a direct victim of the incompetence of those opposite. We do not want to see that happen again. We will ask questions, we will demand answers and we will keep going on this until we get reassurances from the Prime Minister that he will take this seriously.

The first thing the Prime Minister should do is come and correct the record, because, if he comes and corrects the record, he will be admitting that the processes that were followed weren't the proper processes that were followed and that he was wrong in saying that exactly the same security arrangements were followed, because we know that is not true. Until he will admit that and until he demands that the new immigration minister does a proper and thorough check of everyone who has come into this country, the security of Australia is at risk.

We have to remember that already 416 of those people who have come into Australia have sought to claim asylum. They have sought to claim asylum and they could be here for five to 10 years while that is processed. If you haven't done the security checks, if you haven't done the in-person interviews with those people, you are fundamentally putting the Australian community at risk. We say to the Prime Minister: where are you? Come in now and do your job. Keep the Australian community safe.

Zali Steggall

It's extremely concerning to see the opposition turn up today with this suspension of standing orders and the words and the rhetoric that we're hearing here. It goes directly against the advice of ASIO and the concern around the polarisation in our communities—that whipping up of a sense of fear and that inference that, for example, our services and systems are not working. What I'd like to share is the human story, the real story, about some of the people we're talking about and the lives we're talking about.

And I would ask you to be silent! I have the floor!

Milton Dick

Order! The member for Cowper will cease interjecting. The member for Warringah will be heard, just as other members were heard, in silence.

Long debate text truncated.

Paul Fletcher

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme be required to come into the House immediately and withdraw his factually incorrect claims about the issue of media releases concerning the NDIS and fraud under the previous coalition government, and apologise for misleading the House.

This is urgent, because what we have seen is the most cynical and deliberate misleading of this House. I'm going to ask my colleague to—

Milton Dick

Manager of Opposition Business, please resume your seat for a moment. The Leader of the House?

Tony Burke

On a point of order. The word 'deliberate' was just used. It is not possible for that word to be used during a suspension motion. That is highly disorderly and should be withdrawn and ought not be said again during the suspension debate.

Milton Dick

I'll get the manager to withdraw that word and ensure that that's not used—deliberate.

Paul Fletcher

I am happy to withdraw the word 'deliberate'. Let's just remind the House what was said by the minister for the NDIS. He made the factually incorrect claim that none of the seven ministers for the NDIS under the previous coalition government had issued a media release in relation to fraud. He went on to emphasise that statement with the use of words like 'zip' and 'nada', but what he said was completely, factually incorrect.

I want to make the point that on 18 October 2018 a media release was issued by the now Leader of the Opposition, together with me, then Minister for Families and Social Services, and the minister with responsibility for the NDIS at that time, headed 'NDIS taskforce makes first arrest'. It read:

The Coalition Government established the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Fraud Taskforce in July to tackle potential fraud against the NDIS.

Today we can announce that the Taskforce has made a significant arrest.

That was not a one-off. That was not the only media release issued over a period in which a number of coalition ministers had responsibility for the NDIS. For example, on 22 April 2021, a media release was issued by the then Minister for Home Affairs and the then Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That media release was headed 'Morrison government moves to protect NDIS from organised crime'. It read:

Operation Pegasus is a months-long NDIS Fraud Taskforce investigation into an alleged criminal syndicate …

It was an investigation being carried out in relation to alleged fraud against the NDIS, and a media release was issued by two coalition ministers, including the coalition minister then responsible for the NDIS. On 31 July 2021, a media release headered 'Extended crackdown on NDIS fraud' with the then Minister for the NDIS Senator Reynolds said:

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is extending the NDIS Fraud Taskforce …

We had a media release on 15 November 2021, which said:

More than $10 million of incorrect or non-compliant payments from National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) providers has been identified since July.

The media release spoke of the specialist National Disability Insurance Agency Compliance Response Team. Then, of course, there was a media release on 7 December 2021—again, a joint release between the then Minister for Home Affairs and the then minister with responsibility for the NDIS reporting:

… the Australian Federal Police (AFP) executed search warrants across three premises—

working jointly with the National Disability Insurance Agency fraud team. That is just a handful, a sample, of the releases that were issued by coalition ministers in relation to fraud and the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Agency.

I inform the House of that to allow the House to then consider the accuracy of the statement that was made by the Minister for the NDIS some 30 or 40 minutes ago here in this place in question time. He had this to say:

I went through my file about when did the ministers of the government start talking about fraud. I went through all of the seven coalition ministers for the NDIS. They never put out one press release on challenging or detecting fraud, not one—zip, nada—

Dan Tehan

'Zilch!'

Paul Fletcher

The Hansard says 'milch', but I think it might be 'zilch'. That statement is completely incorrect. It is entirely incorrect. It's not something that he just made up on the fly. He told us he prepared for this. He told us that he'd gone through his files.

Angus Taylor

His speechwriter has been working at it!

Paul Fletcher

He may well have had the assistance of his $620,000 speechwriter in preparing those remarks, which he has just made in this House!

The fact is that the member for Maribyrnong has form in being highly misleading. The workers of Chiquita Mushrooms, for example, thought that he was acting, in an unqualified way, in their best interests when he was the secretary of the Australian Workers Union. But, in fact, we know that there was a deal done under which Chiquita Mushrooms workers, represented by the AWU, ended up with terms that were not as good as many other workers'. There were unusual payments to the union. The union received a $4,000 payment per month over six months in return for what the union, then led by the current member for Maribyrnong, claimed was for health and safety training.

The fact is that it may be the case that the member for Maribyrnong is used to operating in environments where he could get away with making statements that are entirely factually wrong and, by consequence, make claims against individuals and indeed people who have had significant positions of responsibility in this nation which are entirely factually incorrect. He may be used to working in environments where he's able to do that. But this is not such an environment.

If you make a statement in this place which is clearly demonstrably and factually wrong, and if you make that statement and preface it with clear evidence that you have prepared making that statement and that you've gone through your files, you can hardly then say, 'It was an accident; I somehow managed to miss the five media releases—' which I was able to find with the assistance of my hardworking staff and other hardworking coalition staff in about 15 minutes. Five media releases—there may very well be more. We haven't found just one that proved that what he said was factually incorrect. We haven't found just two. We haven't found three. We found five in literally a few minutes. I doubt there has been, certainly in this term of parliament and perhaps for a very long time, such an exercise in making a statement which is clearly untrue and which is clearly calculated to provide political advantage.

What the minister was seeking to do was position himself as some kind of holder of virtue on this matter as the person who has solely twigged to the fact that there may be a risk of fraud. He should have twigged to this a very long ago, because he was the genius who created this in the first place. Every one of those coalition ministers worked very hard to try and clean up the mess he created. In the two years that he has been in government, he has done very little about it. The best he can do is make statements which are entirely factually incorrect about the record of coalition ministers. So this minister needs to return and apologise.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Michael McCormack

The motion is absolutely seconded. The suspension of standing and sessional orders is very important because we now have one hour and 15 minutes left of parliament this week and it's so important that the member for Maribyrnong, the Minister for the NDIS, responsible for one of the most important parts of government, comes back into this chamber and explain why he has, accidentally or otherwise, misled the House on this very important issue.

He cannot have gone through his files and found that the coalition, when in government, did nothing about fraud in this important space. To say otherwise is to malign those very good, hardworking ministers of the coalition who did absolutely everything to make sure that any fraudulent activity was not only addressed but brought to heel by the then government. The member for Maribyrnong has been here since 2007. He knows better than to go to that dispatch box and suggest that something otherwise was done. Indeed, we put in place measures to absolutely crack down on fraudulent activity. You heard from the member for Bradfield, who feels slighted by the fact that something else was suggested, that the member for McPherson produced a media release that absolutely said that not only were we cracking down on fraudulent activity but there was a fellow who was arrested for that very thing.

Milton Dick

Order! Member for Hasluck, it doesn't help to have continual interjections.

Michael McCormack

Sont les mots qui vont tres bien ensemble—maybe he's thinking of adventures in gay Paris! Maybe his speechwriter has suggested otherwise and he has his mind on other things, maybe ambassadorial roles. But he knows better than to go to that dispatch box in question time, where the truth is important. The truth is important. When you are a minister, you have to tell the truth. Whether it was an accident or otherwise, we do believe he has absolutely misled this House. It's important that he has an hour and 12 minutes to come back into this chamber. The House Practice absolutely demands he do so. We are requesting that he does so. Convention of the Westminster system absolutely makes it crystal clear that he should come back into this House and explain himself, come back into this House and admit that he was wrong. It's not hard to say you were wrong. It's up to him to say that he was wrong. He knows that he was wrong. He can't suggest that the coalition never put out a media release and his file suggested there were no media releases, because we know and have proven in these statements that the actual fact was otherwise. It is absolutely plain as day. The member for McPherson, the then home affairs minister said:

All Australians suffer when public money is defrauded. That's why this Government—

the coalition government—

is serious about taking strong action to protect against fraud.

It's rather damning to suggest that the coalition when in government did not do anything about fraud in the NDIS space. The minister, the former opposition leader who led Labor to the 2016 and 2019 elections—not quite sure how that went for him!—is very senior. He's been in this place as the member for Maribyrnong since 2007. It's incumbent upon him to come back into this chamber, explain himself, admit that he got it wrong and admit that perhaps that speechwriter to whom we're paying $600,000 worth of taxpayers' money got it wrong. Somebody got it wrong, but the buck stops with him because he was the one who said it. He was the one who erroneously claimed that the now opposition—the then government—did nothing to crack down on fraud in the NDIS. We did, and we've had minister after minister say that very thing. We've got the media releases.

I hear the member for Watson. We've proven it. We can table those media releases, obviously. The member for Maribyrnong says he hasn't got them in his files, but he would have. He only had to ask his department and they would've produced them. To suggest anything else is breaching convention. It is breaching the Westminster system. It is breaching House of Representatives Practice and it's breaching the good grace of this parliament, where truth is important.

Labor came to office in May 2022 and they said, 'We will restore integrity. We'll let the sunshine in. We'll be transparent.' This minister, today, has not been any of those things, and it's up to him to come back into this chamber now, and if the member for Watson, or whoever is following me in the speech, has even an absolutely slight consideration of how important House Practice is, how important the Westminster system is—and here he is, thankfully! Hopefully, he's going to make that truth be accountable.

Long debate text truncated.