Andrew Gee

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

(1) the Member for Calare presenting a Bill for an Act to stop windfarms in state forests, and for related purposes;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and

(3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay.

Today I introduce this game-changing bill which would stop the building of wind farms in softwood pine plantations. The bill is aptly titled Stopping Windfarms in State Forests Bill 2025. Over the last few weeks, I have attended consultations and meetings in Sunny Corner and Yetholme in the seat of Calare, where the Sunny Corner State Forest wind farm proposal has been unveiled. I am not against renewable energy, but reasonable, commonsense balance is needed. I have to say that I was very concerned by what I saw there. These turbines are very close to many residential homes—in some cases, a mere one kilometre away. I was surprised by how big the impact would be on these residents. It seems to me like the developer has placed the turbines at locations which will cost them the least but will impact local residents the most. It's the same around Oberon. I cannot support these developments. While the developers say that they will consult, the reality is that for these companies it's a business decision that is made in faraway foreign boardrooms.

I've been working with local residents in other impacted communities on similar issues for many years. While I've had some success in getting wind farms moved or modified for local residents, I've experienced a number of companies who will just not do the right thing by local residents. To me, it's very clear that the controversies and conflicts that communities are having as a result of renewable projects is because of the failure in politics and politicians. The problem is that windfarms are regulated by state planning laws. In 2021, when the New South Wales National Party and their candidate for Calare passed a law to put wind farms in state forests, they did so without properly regulating and setting out the rights of impacted residents and neighbours. The result of this glaring failure to pass proper laws is conflict and controversy. You've got family members fighting family members over the fence and communities divided. It's simply not the country way. I spoke to one of our local Sunny Corner residents last week who told me that under the current proposal for the Sunny Corner State Forest she will have a turbine one kilometre from her house. She said she's hardly slept because of the worry and the strain. It's a classic example of country people bearing the burden of policies that are made in Macquarie Street and Canberra.

Rather than pretending to ride in on white horses, the National Party should be apologising to local communities for the conflict they've created through their failure to do their jobs when they were in government. All the major parties need to take responsibility for their glaring failure to protect impacted residents. They have left others to pick up the pieces. It's the same story with the creation of the New South Wales renewable energy zones and EnergyCo, the New South Wales government company that's building the power lines. The National Party put all of this in place without properly consulting with local communities and without passing laws which would clearly set out the rights of landholders. All the major parties are responsible for this.

Planning laws need to be overhauled. There should be no developments on prime agricultural land. I would include residential developments in this as well. Australia needs food security, yet we are increasingly importing food from overseas. Added to this is the fact that we're often dealing with city-based windfarm staff who have no real idea about country life or how country people live and work. Lack of proper consultation is a huge issue right across our region.

I've been dealing with these issues for many, many years. There are so many developments that I'm being contacted about on an almost daily basis, and I almost lose count of them. I recently went in to bat for residents at Tallawang—which is near Gulgong—who are going to be heavily impacted by wind turbines. Through my advocacy with the company, the turbines were moved to another area. I've also worked with farmers in the Hill End and Sallys Flat area to get turbines moved away from farmhouses and get the scale of the development reduced. In one case a wind turbine was going to be constructed outside the kitchen window of a farming family who'd been working that land for generations. It's a very messy situation for residents and also for communities.

But there is a way forward to clean up this mess. There is. We just need to take a different approach. I've come up with a new solution, which I mentioned at the meetings in Oberon and in Sunny Corner last week. My bill enables the federal government to use its constitutional powers to make laws to stop turbine developments in these state forests. This federal legislation would override the existing way-too-loose state law. This is the bill that I now present to the House.

Clause 3 of the bill is the operative clause. Clause 3(1) states a constitutional corporation must not construct, install or commission a wind farm in a state forest. To put it beyond any doubt, without limiting the definition of 'state forest', it includes the Sunny Corner State Forest near Portland and Lithgow, the Vulcan State Forest, the Mount David State Forest and the Gurnang State Forest—they are in the Oberon area—and also the Canobolas State Forest near Orange. But the bill and the operative clause are not limited to those named state forests; it's for any state forests. Also, I should point out that the constitutional power which is utilised in the framing of this bill is the corporations power.

I've introduced this bill because we need some different thinking on this. These wind farm developments are coming at local residents like a freight train down the line. Local residents are very worried about it and they're very concerned about it, and there doesn't seem to be a way to stop the train. You can talk about nuclear, but these developments will be up and running by the time that policy would even get out of bed. My bill would be the quickest and simplest way to stop them in their tracks.

Many of our local residents around the Central West have been in these areas for generations. Many are elderly and many were shocked, as I was, when the Sunny Corner proposal was unveiled and they saw the scope of these turbines and where they were placed—so close to many residential areas. I expressed my concern to the developer when I saw that plan, but the consultation around the Central West at its very best has been very patchy. As I have stated, there are some wind farm developers who simply will not do the right thing.

The residents of our area who are impacted by these developments in these state forests are looking for a voice. They have asked me to take this proposal, which is a legislative response, to Canberra. I'm very happy to do it because urgent action is needed. One of the common themes through the consultations that I've had around the area, particularly with respect to these state forests, is that the burden of these developments is falling disproportionally on country people rather than city people. They don't think that balance is fair, and they don't think that the balance is right.

This bill rights the wrong that the New South Wales National Party inflicted on country communities around the Central West when they bulldozed their legislation through the New South Wales parliament to allow windfarms in state forests. It was their legislation, and they voted it in. It was National Party and Liberal Party legislation. You can't make it up. So rather than pretend to ride in on white horses, as I've already indicated, the National Party should be apologising for the hurt and pain and conflict and uncertainty that the legislation which they have unleashed has created in our area.

It's now up to all parties to get behind this bill. We need a sensible, balanced and workable energy policy that is fair for everyone. I commend the bill and the motion to the House, and I seek leave to table a copy of the bill and the explanatory memorandum.

Leave not granted.

Lisa Chesters

Is the motion seconded?

Dai Le

The motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Milton Dick

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

Ted O'Brien

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

(1) on the eve of a federal election, the Albanese Government has been forced to work around their own Environment Minister in an attempt to fix a political mess of their own making;

(2) the Government remains bitterly divided on the future of salmon farming at Macquarie Harbour and has unleashed 15 months of anxiety and uncertainty on thousands of workers, families and communities who rely on the salmon industry, including voting against a Coalition bill to improve the reconsideration process in the most recent sitting week of Parliament;

(3) this legislation is not needed to provide lasting certainty to the Tasmanian salmon industry, and instead the Government should simply have ended the Minister for the Environment's disastrous 2023 review of salmon farming's future at Macquarie Harbour;

(4) the Government, and particularly the Environment Minister, must guarantee to not instigate other forms of legislation or regulations that will impose new controls or reviews on the salmon industry, including through the return of their Nature Positive legislation, Federal EPA or use of other forms of the EPBC Act, such as directed environmental audits; and

(5) the changes to the reconsiderations regime in the Bill should be substantially strengthened to ensure that all assessments of all projects, across all industries, do not remain subject to the open-ended review processes that currently exist".

The coalition will support this bill. We do so in recognition of the urgent need to put an end to the living hell that salmon businesses and workers in Tasmania have endured under this Albanese government and, in particular, through the actions of its environment minister. We have made the decision to support the bill's passage because it provides at least some small measure of comfort and relief to the Tasmanian salmon industry and its workers after a truly harrowing period. However, no-one should be fooled into thinking that this bill is to the Labor Party what its drafting may suggest.

By way of this bill, Tasmanian salmon businesses and workers are being used as a bargaining chip in Labor's intensifying internal war on environmental issues. To Labor, this legislation isn't principally about Tasmanian salmon workers and their families; it is about factional games, internal warfare and political fixes inside Labor itself. It's a reflection of a longstanding and intensifying feud not just between Prime Minister and environment minister but between many in the ranks of the Labor caucus on environmental policy.

We have recently learnt about a heated debate within caucus itself where the Prime Minister has seemingly traded off. On one hand, he has won his desire to end the minister's review on the future of salmon farming in Tasmania, but on the other he has agreed to the minister again pursuing the creation of a federal environment protection authority and, of course, the disastrous nature-positive agenda. This approach, if implemented, will cause another massive rise in green tape, severely damage investment in jobs and cause many further cost-of-living increases in the process.

So it may look at first blush as though the Prime Minister has to find a way around the minister in order to close off this review, and there is indeed truth to that; there really is. But it is far deeper than even that. This is all about something far darker, and it is yet another marker of the dark arts of the Albanese Labor government playing politics for internal political processes, because a dirty deal has clearly been done.

Putting the miserable internal machinations of the Labor government to one side, the very fact that salmon companies and workers in Tasmania need relief is a direct consequence of the minister's reckless decision to launch a full-throttle attack on this industry in the first place. For nearly 15 months, the government has left the industry exposed to a review that has placed their entire future in jeopardy, and it should be noted that it has resisted all sensible offers and advice from the coalition to set this right. As recently as the very last sitting week of this parliament—on 12 February, in fact—the Labor government voted against this very kind of legislation, when it was the coalition which brought it forward through a bill to help the salmon industry and change the EPBC reconsideration process. Any pretence from Labor that they really want to help the salmon industry and the workers in Tasmania is a sick joke, because history exposes the truth.

It is for these reasons and more that I moved an amendment at the front end of this address. The purpose of that amendment is to try and redress some of Labor's many errors and missteps in association with the bill they put forward today and to try to provide more certainty to communities across Tasmania, particularly the West Coast, north-west, east coast and beyond. Of course, those errors and missteps trace all the way back to 2023, when the environment minister acquiesced to the wishes of three activist groups—the Bob Brown Foundation, the Australia Institute and the Albanese government funded Environmental Defenders Office—to place the entire existence of the industry, its workers and regional communities under severe threat. Outrageously, the minister has kept this review running right up until now and had no plans to end it even before the election. In the process, she created for Tasmanian workers, especially in the state's West Coast, what the local mayor Shane Pitt has described as 'cruel' and a 'living hell'. Clearly a lot of MPs in Labor would have liked the review to continue, but at least it does appear that this bill finally puts a halt to it.

Let me echo the point made by Salmon Tasmania CEO Luke Martin on 21 March that this legislation is not by any means a complete fix. The legislation is also a long way from perfect with respect to the reconsideration regime in the EPBCA. It still needs several changes before it fully and adequately addresses the relevant matters, and we are, therefore, putting forward a series of amendments. If passed, the amendments we're putting forward will improve the reconsideration rules in the act to provide more certainty for everyone and will certainly reduce the ad hoc green lawfare that now proliferates against EPBCA decisions that have been settled—some, many years ago.

Ours include a pious amendment that gives expression to some of the most immediate problems that would loom on the horizon for the industry and its workers, especially if the Labor Party were to win the next election and particularly if it were ultimately to form a minority government with the Greens. Each of our amendments is being moved not just in an attempt to better insulate the salmon industry from further outlandish reconsideration requests but also in recognition of the increasing vulnerability of all industries, companies and jobs that either have been implicated to date or are at risk of being targeted further in the future. Believe it or not, there are still some companies that have been waiting for the minister to finalise reconsideration processes for nearly the entirety of this term of government and, therefore, of her term as the relevant minister.

Now, if, by way of this legislation, the Albanese government, albeit after being dragged kicking and screaming, has admitted that it has made mistakes, then you would think it should at least commit to serious reforms and not be half-hearted about it, as they are being, as evidenced through this bill. Being so half-hearted only has the implication of introducing further uncertainty about the rules for this industry and others well into the future. It won't surprise anyone—certainly, it won't surprise the people of Tasmania, especially those in the salmon industry—that Australia now suffers from the second-highest level of green lawfare anywhere in the world.

On the environment moreover, let's be clear that Australia should always strive to ensure that whatever we do in our country has minimal adverse impact on our unique and precious natural environment, and that includes ensuring that endangered species are protected. However, the Albanese government has completely failed to take the relevant steps to help improve the future prospects of either the species in question or the salmon workers. Reductions or closures of the salmon-farming industry's operations on the west coast of Tasmania, as seems to have long been the minister's plan, would cause thousands of direct and indirect job losses.

These impacts would be devastating at a local level, including by threatening the entire existence of the town of Strahan and other nearby regional communities, because there are simply no obvious replacement industries or adequate employment possibilities in those areas. The coalition have said on many occasions that we believe this minister's approach has been reprehensible. It has provided none of the necessary urgency or certainty and, in the case of the salmon workers in particular, has only created heightened anxiety and stress.

Science should have been better respected. In keeping with this point, it is very important to note the significant findings of a wealth of scientific studies and observations over the last 15 months. These have included reports from the Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority, the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and Dr Ian Wallis and commentary from the University of Tasmania's Professor Barry Brook.

Among other conclusions, these studies and observations have pointed to manifest improvements in water quality in Macquarie Harbour, to no further declines in recent years in numbers of skates, the threatened species, and instead to stabilisation and positive signs for growth and to major flaws in some of the original modelling that was provided to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. They also indicate that any threat to the existence of skates is due to a multitude of many different factors. Such findings are obviously also underscored by the fact that, unlike in Macquarie Harbour, the skate became all but extinct many years ago in Bathurst Harbour. That is an area of Tasmania in which salmon farming has never been practised. For all these reasons and many others, the strong view of the coalition is that the skate population and the salmon industry can clearly coexist sustainability at Macquarie Harbour, and that this provides the most balanced and positive outcome for everyone.

Lisa Chesters

Is the motion seconded?

Rick Wilson

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.

Andrew Gee

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

(1) the Member for Calare introducing the Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill; and

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding for a period of no longer than one hour, after which any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay.

Since I introduced the Keeping Cash Transactions Bill to this House, I have been overwhelmed with the response not only from around the electorate of Calare but also from around our nation. The response has been so positive and so forceful because people are worried that cash is going to be phased out. This groundbreaking legislation preserves the use of cash in our national economy. It does this by legislating that businesses operating in face-to-face settings must offer to accept and, crucially, must accept cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000. The bill provides for maximum civil penalties of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for companies—and it should be noted that they are civil penalties as opposed to criminal penalties. The bill also provides some important and practical exemptions to these requirements. They include that offering to accept cash would pose a reasonable security risk; that it would be contrary to another law of the Commonwealth or a law of a state or territory; that it would be contrary to the Commonwealth, state or territory health advice such as advice provided during a pandemic; and that cash in the form of change is needed but not readily available.

It defies belief that cash can be legal tender in this country but businesses are not obliged to accept cash for transactions. All they have to do is make it known to a customer that cash is not accepted and they don't have to accept it. This is causing a huge amount of anxiety and grief in our communities, particularly our country communities. Many senior Australians do not want to use cards for their transactions. The Reserve Bank of Australia has found that Australians over the age of 65 are the heaviest users of cash. To many older Australians, cash is not just a convenience; it's a lifeline. In these times of economic uncertainty and rising costs, cash is actually an essential tool for managing finances and sticking to a budget.

Many Australians find managing accounts and cards online to be a very stressful experience, and they find it confusing. Many Australians, particularly older Australians, don't want to use online banking or online accounts. I should point out, coming from a rural and regional area, that cash is often used in rural areas by individuals who don't have ready access to banking services. Many constituents in the Calare electorate are also worried that, if they are forced to switch to cards, they will face additional fees in the form of bank surcharges—and that is a very good point. Many Australians are now waking up to the fact that banks and financial institutions charge merchant fees for card transactions which can then be passed on to consumers. It's an insidious tax that is added to transactions just by tapping a card. It's been estimated that Australians are losing more than a billion dollars a year in surcharges when they pay by card and not by cash.

I've had feedback from local businesses about my Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill. Many businesses actually want to keep cash as well; they don't want to switch to being solely digital. But, like many in our community, they are worried there may be an agenda either by governments or by large corporations to phase cash out.

In country areas, we also need to consider the practicalities of internet connectivity. In many regional and rural areas reliable internet access does not exist, and cash remains a dependable means of exchange that does not rely on electricity or internet access. The bottom line is that cash transactions are unaffected by digital failures. During natural disasters like fires or floods, connectivity can be disrupted for many days—sometimes longer—rendering electronic payments unusable.

As I've said, many Australians prefer cash as a means of managing their budget so they can physically see the money and it can be allocated to different expenses. I ask you: how can we teach our children about the value of money and budgeting if they don't actually know what it is? Other Australians worry about privacy and the risk of fraud associated with using cards. Many Australians have been victims of fraud and unauthorised transactions relating to cards and accounts linked to them. Privacy is another reason some Australians prefer to use cash over cards. And some people simply don't like or want corporations knowing every single thing they buy. It should be their choice, and they should have the right to use cash if they want to.

This bill is not about imposing burdens and regulations on businesses; it's about striking a balance between innovation and inclusivity and preserving the essence of choice in our financial transactions and in our economy. It's about the freedom of Australians to choose how they will pay for their transactions.

I note that the government has responded to my Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill by stating that there is a plan to make cash transactions compulsory for essential services. I accept the Treasurer and the member for Fenner have worked on this with the best will in the world, but unfortunately I don't think it is the approach that most in our communities would support. I think, speaking frankly, it's a second-best approach that acknowledges that the community wants action to keep cash, but I don't think it will be effective. I don't think it will stop businesses phasing out the use of cash. I don't think it will keep cash king in Australia. I think it will only end up applying to big businesses and, while it may force the supermarket giants and big fuel companies to keep cash, it won't go much further.

I think Australians around our nation who still want to use cash for everyday transactions will be disappointed by the government's response to this issue. In country areas there are many people who don't buy their food and groceries from major supermarket chains, and they use cash to buy a whole range of goods and services which won't be caught by the government's so-called mandate. What the government is proposing simply is not strong enough. If the government is serious about keeping cash in Australia, it should be backing my bill. That's why this bill needs to be discussed and debated in this House and passed as a matter of urgency. Australians should have the confidence to carry cash in their wallets knowing that they can use their legal tender to make a purchase anywhere at any time

As I've said, there are many people in our community who are crying out for action on this, and they haven't received it from this parliament. That's what my bill remedies. I would urge all members to support this bill. I think that this bill is vital to protect the right of Australians to choose how they will pay for their transactions. That's not a choice that should be made for them by financial institutions or businesses. So I commend this motion to the House and I urge Australians all over our great nation to get behind this bill and lobby their members of parliament to support this bill to preserve the use of cash in our society and in our economy. Many Australians are feeling marginalised by the move to a digital economy, they feel that they are being left behind and they feel that their voices are not being heard. They want to keep cash king in Australia. So I would urge all members to back this motion and keep cash king in Australia.

Ian Goodenough

Is the motion seconded?

Dai Le

I second the motion. I'd like to thank the member for Calare for introducing the Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 which we know highlights the fundamental right that many take for granted, and that's the right to choose how we pay for goods and services. I represent one of the most multicultural electorates in the country in the electorate of Fowler. It's home to hardworking families, small businesses and elderly residents who rely on cash for their daily transactions. Walk into any grocery store or restaurant in my area and you'll see signs saying 'cash only'. Cash isn't just a convenience; it's essential to our local economy.

While I understand the shift towards digital payments, we cannot ignore the fact that many in our community still depend on cash. Not everyone has access to digital banking and not everyone is comfortable using it. Whether they are seniors who have used cash all their lives, small-business owners managing their costs or families sending money overseas, cash plays a crucial role in their daily lives. The importance of cash extends beyond convenience. It is also a matter of safety, privacy and financial inclusion. Consider those escaping domestic violence. For them, cash can be a lifeline, allowing them to purchase essentials without fear of financial surveillance by their abuser. Carers of individuals with intellectual disabilities have also shared with me their struggles when their loved ones cannot navigate online banking. For these families, cash is the only way to ensure independence and dignity in managing their finances. This bill does not force businesses to accept cash for every transaction; it simply ensures that cash remains a valid option for purchases up to $10,000. Businesses remain free to set their own policies for larger transactions. This is a reasonable, balanced approach that acknowledges both consumer rights and business realities. As it's called, the bill is about respect—respect for diverse communities, different traditions and the right to privacy. Cash payments provide anonymity, allowing Australians to donation to charities, support small businesses and make personal purchases without unnecessary tracking or oversight.

As we move further into a digital age, we must not leave behind those who are not part of the online economy. Excluding cash from transactions risks isolating vulnerable groups—the elderly, people with disabilities and those in difficult financial or personal circumstances. We must ensure that no-one is forced into a system they do not trust or understand. In Fowler, we are a community built on diversity, resilience and mutual support. The Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 is about protecting the right of all Australians, regardless of background, age or financial situation, to participate fully in our economy without fear of exclusion.

I think the bill is about choice, it's about fairness and it's about ensuring that our economy works for everyone. I remember when the member for Calare introduced the bill last year and I supported that and spoke on it. My community, often when there are bills debated in here, do not really engage that much. But, for keeping cash in the economy, I was inundated with people emailing me, contacting me, messaging me, saying, 'This is such an important bill,' and, 'Please fight to ensure that cash is still kept in our economy.' I will ensure that I will fight alongside the member for Calare and those members in the House who realise—who have to realise—that, I'm sure, people in their electorate are still finding that cash is a currency that needs to be retained and not everything has to be digital. We are definitely going to exclude people if we just move everything over to digital. So I urge all members to support this in the interests of freedom, security and inclusion for every Australian.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Zoe McKenzie

I rise to speak on the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024. This is an imperfect bill and purports to fulfil a Labor election promise that is now three years old on the shelf. It seems quite odd that we should be considering this bill on the eve of the 2025 election and that, yet again, this parliament should be subjected to legislation with which no-one is particularly happy, with so many stakeholder groups expressing concern about the framework contained in the bill. But, as we have heard from so many contributors in this debate before me, Australia is known as a scammers' honey pot, easy for the taking and light on regulation at a time when, as we have vastly digitised our economy through the COVID period, digitally enabled scams have been exploding both in number and impact. This bill, at least, would institute a scams prevention framework, which would require regulated entities to take certain actions in relation to scams, including taking responsible steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams relating to services which that entity provides.

Almost weekly, I hear from constituents in my electorate who have been scammed or near scammed. It's agony when they raise this issue with me. They tend to come feeling quite embarrassed—ashamed in some instances—and frustrated that there is no emergency button to press when it happens and that no-one seems to be accountable, least of all the scammers themselves, for this fraud and the crime affecting so many in our community. In 2023, the last available figures, almost $3 billion of Australian savings were lost as a result of over 600,000 scams made that year, which was an almost 20 per cent increase on the previous year's figures. That is an astonishing figure, and I can't help but wonder whether, if $3 billion worth of assets had been stolen from people's homes through breaking and entering, we would have doubled the police force. But, because so much of this scamming occurs in the digisphere, and in particular via unregulated internet platforms owned and based offshore, Australia has been slow to react.

For those who have been scammed, let me be clear that it is not your fault. The skills of scammers, their extraordinary customer service, leave our government institutions, our banks and our airlines in the dust. Their customer service is second to none, highly tailored to reassure and guide the elderly or the infirm in particular through a labyrinth of digital manipulation. Their interlocutors on the phone and their systems are much easier to navigate than the ones that the banks or the telco companies or the TV channels or the news websites give us. I know because this happened to my poor old mum 12 months ago. Poor old Mum is getting a bit of a shout-out this week; it's just as well she can't reprimand me for that anymore. She serves as a useful yardstick here because my mum was no dummy. She was a Fulbright scholar; the recipient of endless medical scholarships and fellowships; a trained cardiothoracic surgeon; and a lawyer, barrister and tribunal member—a genius.

A year ago, I flew overseas to South America for a short break, and when I landed I rang Mum to check in. I asked how she slept. 'Not well,' came the answer, 'because I got to bed so late after talking to Telstra.' 'Talking to Telstra?' I said. 'Yes. Apparently the Russians were trying to hack my devices, but it's okay because Telstra rang, and they talked me through the steps I needed to do to protect the system. It did take forever, though, and I only got to bed after 9 o'clock.' 'What time did they ring you, Mum?' 'About 7 pm.' 'Mum, Telstra doesn't ring after five. Did they put anything on your computer?' 'Yes, yes, they put all the things I need to be safe on it and on the iPad and the phone too, and I'm sure it was Telstra because it was an Australian voice'—Mum's from a different generation—'but it's all safe now.' Silence. 'Mum, it wasn't Telstra. I need you to ring the banks right now. You need to ask them to stop all transactions on all accounts, and you need to block your credit cards right now.'

Within minutes of hanging up on Mum, the scammers had set up a Gmail account which mirrored her longstanding Bigpond account so they could intercept all of her emails and fraudulently represent that they were her. Friends who ran to her side that day at dawn could see an overnight web history of people trying to break into bank accounts, iTunes accounts and online retail shopping platforms. By gift of my mother's age, she had never cached a password. The scammers got nothing, but it was a horrendous shock for her, and I had to sit up through many, many nights of that week—from the other side of the planet—talking her through the safety I had put in place around her and what to look out for in coming days in case there was something we had missed. I had friends confiscate and clean all her devices. I had to get her a backup phone. I put holds on all of her bank accounts and had friends walk around to her house with brown paper bags of cash while I digitally reimbursed them from the other side of the planet. At exactly the time she wanted to follow all my travels online, I left Mum in the digital dark. It was both cruel and heartbreaking.

When I expressed my dismay to a digitally clever friend about the timing—Mum had just come out of hospital—I was told, 'That's intentional.' The scammers take a read of which devices are drawing down overnight from the tower above the hospital so they know who's staying there for treatment rather than being there as a doctor or nurse. And then, when that device—that IP address—leaves the remit of the hospital tower, they get in contact with the number. There's nothing like new drugs, poor sleep and perhaps pain management to make you vulnerable to a scammer. I rang the hospital and suggested they advise their patients or their families to be particularly wary of scams when they leave the hospital's care. Even though Mum lost nothing in that scam, what endured for her was a morbid fear of technology—her questioning of herself every single time she was online. She lost all dexterity in internet banking. All trust in emails was gone. At the start, lest some form of spyware had been left on the devices, I banned all internet banking, and we would go into the branches together to manage her affairs. Thank God she still had branches to go into.

My mum's story is one of hundreds I could give you from my electorate. We are an older electorate—the fifth oldest in the country—which makes us prime targets for scammers impersonating trusted brands in particular: Telstra, Qantas, Woolworths, Medicare, Origin Energy and the ATO. In 2024, nearly 60,000 over-65s were scammed out of a total of $100 million, according to Scamwatch. There would be thousands more near misses like my mum with no financial loss but which come with a vast loss of confidence and capability in a rapidly digitising economy.

This is a really important issue for my community of Flinders. A year or so ago, I spoke to a Probus group at Main Ridge, and, while the topic of my conversation was meant to be about parenting and social media, it quickly became a conversation and a realisation for me that we really have failed to equip our senior citizens with the skills they need to do things digitally and the know-how for what they can trust online. While regulatory frameworks, like those contained in this bill, are important, human frameworks—customer-centric design thinking about the age and vulnerability of the customer demography—are just as important.

In May of last year, I hosted a seniors expo in my electorate, and one of the store holders was our community bank in Mount Martha, operated by Bendigo Bank. It is a much loved institution up and down the Mornington Peninsula and one which prides itself on face-to-face customer service for our community, especially in relation to scam recovery services. At the seniors expo, Bendigo Bank brought down its top brass in scamming class, and it shared three steps to mitigate the risk of scamming: stop—don't give money or personal information to anyone if you're in any way unsure; think—ask yourself, 'Could this message or call be a fake?'; and protect—act quickly if something feels wrong. The last step, act quickly, is vital. This is what I had to do through the night—in fact, over many nights—from Santiago in Chile to install protections around my mother's interests and, more importantly, to reassure her she was going to be okay.

Scams thrive because it is human to have inevitable lapses in judgement, and with each day our scammers get more sophisticated, such that even the most paranoid amongst us are at risk of being duped. I remember the first time I got one of those text messages from NAB. It came from NAB, the same NAB title that I got from every other communication from NAB in my iPhone. It told me I needed to ring the bank about a suspicious transaction on a mobile phone number. I thought, 'That's weird,' and I rang the bank on the normal number that I call them on, not the text, and was told: 'No. There are no odd transactions.' I screenshot the text and sent it to them.

The scammers' business model is vulnerability executed to perfection. They know when mums are busy picking up kids or dads might be trying to finish up a day's work on the tools before a long weekend. They text Nan on a public holiday, 'You forgot to pay your Origin bill.' No-one wants to pay the Origin bill late, and so you pay it, but you use the click-through because you're on the run, and it turns out you haven't paid the Origin bill at all.

As part of this debate, we must recognise that older Australians rely on an analogue interface. We used to call it going into the branch. Closing branches has a devastating effect on people's confidence that there will be help if something goes wrong. As I sat with Mum at Westpac or NAB, waiting to make a simple transaction in the few months after her scam exposure, I observed a myriad of people coming in in absolute desperation. They were up at the counter expressing their frustration, their confusion and their panic. They had no idea what happened, but they knew something bad had happened. A branch or a vigilant daughter—for those who don't have the latter, they still need the former.

Bendigo Bank—so loved in our community for their support of community sport, for their support of volunteer groups and, most recently, for their contribution of $600,000 to create a wellness centre at the Bays Hospital in Mornington, which I had the honour to open on Monday—has developed a big emphasis on face-to-face resolution as a way to make people feel more comfortable admitting they have been scammed. Not only does it more effectively help those generations who aren't digital natives, but it gives every human a sense of assurance that the problem can be solved then and there. In 2023, Bendigo Bank launched a face-to-face education approach to help its 2.5 million customers safely navigate digital banking. It's an innovation which other banks could and should follow.

When I have raised the issue of digital and scamming education with the big four banks on behalf of my consumers, they have been keen to tell me that such education is readily available online. I can only stress here as I have stressed in those meetings: you are missing the point, dear banks. Once you have been scammed or near scammed, the online world is one of fear and uncertainty. The way back is face-to-face communication. My community in the electorate of Flinders has benefited greatly from these sessions being run by local branches of the Bendigo Bank, and I really thank them for this and encourage them to keep up their great work.

The coalition has a record of advocating for sensible obligations on companies to stop scams. In his 2023 budget reply speech, our leader, Peter Dutton, committed that a coalition government would impose more onerous obligations on big digital companies to stop scams and financial fraud. The Australian Banking Association has, in the absence of concrete policy from government in this space until now, developed a Scam-Safe Accord, which seems to be the central policy glue committing all types of industries to work together in an ecosystem to mitigate against scams. We are yet to see if it will stem the scamming tide.

It nevertheless aligns with some of the recommendations that the coalition provided in its additional comments to the recent Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society report, namely that a shared responsibility for scams is the only way that customers will be protected through the entire supply chain of a digitally executed or induced fraud. In that report's additional comments, the coalition members argued that social media companies should be held liable for failing to remove and report links, tools and users who, through link-in-bio platforms, facilitate access to class 1 or class 2 material and indeed scam ads. At present, social media companies are making money out of advertising from regulated and restricted industries. They therefore have a vested interest in using data to exploit users for their clients. For these reasons, the coalition committee members in that report recommended that government mandate detailed annual reporting to the eSafety Commissioner on revenue from regulated and restricted industries.

In their evidence to the joint select committee, the International Justice Mission also identified that dating apps and websites play a significant role in romance scams and child sexual exploitation and called for those companies and social media platforms to collaborate closely to stem romance scamming. The coalition members of the social media committee argued in recommendation 13 that we should establish a joint standing committee on online safety, artificial intelligence and technology, tasked with investigating the strengths and weaknesses in Australia's regulatory system, legislative tools, industrial base and technological capabilities. As scammers get better at their craft using different platforms and methodologies, we must be ready to regulate to keep our citizens safe. This bill we're considering today constitutes a start, albeit a slow and unambitious start. It's perhaps one indicative of this entire government's approach to leading Australia but one which hopefully will, if nothing else, rob us of the title of global scams' honey pot.

(Quorum formed)

Long debate text truncated.

Fiona Phillips

The Albanese government is committed to investing in the skills Australia needs to drive economic growth. Our Free TAFE Bill offers greater certainty to students, employers and industry, and commits the Commonwealth to ongoing support to states and territories for free TAFE.

In regional areas like Gilmore, so many kids want to finish school and gain an apprenticeship or train at their local TAFE. Many don't want to leave home and move to the city to find work or go to uni. They are salt-of-the-earth kids. They've grown up in small coastal towns, and often they want to work hard and follow in the footsteps of their parents, grandparents and siblings, whether that's working as a tradie, a nurse or an early educator. I am so pleased that more than 4,400 students took up free TAFE in my electorate last year. That's school leavers, mums, dads and older people retraining and getting ahead without putting added financial pressure on their family. I've been on the ground and walking the streets, talking with local apprentices, employers and TAFE students to hear about how and why they chose an apprenticeship, and how fee-free TAFE is helping them.

Back in November I visited the Nowra TAFE campus with the Acting Prime Minister. We went into electrical and carpentry classes. We spoke with students and heard how fee-free TAFE is providing that bit of important financial relief for students and their families. These classes are booming at Nowra—training our tradies of the future—thanks to free TAFE.

In October I joined the Minister for Skills and Training to meet with twins Najara and Harrisen, both first-year motor mechanic apprentices at Batemans Bay. The 17-year-old siblings are being trained under the watchful eye of their father, Mark, the owner and director of Batemans Bay Automotive Repairs, who boast more than 20 years experience in the trade. The small family business has been employing and upskilling five apprentices since 2015, providing job opportunities for young people in our region. It was also really great to see this business employing women in a historically male dominated trade. Najara is working in a priority cohort, and has improved access to flexible, safe and inclusive training and work opportunities, which is just fantastic. I could see how passionate she was about cars, and it was great to see her interest in learning more about electric vehicles too. The pair travel to Nowra TAFE once a week and work in a workshop equipped with up-to-date scanning, diagnostic and programming tools for all modern vehicles. They are looking forward to one day taking the helm of their family business, and I'm delighted that TAFE is providing them with the variety of skills needed to do just that.

During the visit we also met with Robert Beattie, the owner of Beach House Stairs at Batemans Bay and a huge supporter of young people and TAFE. You could say Robert knows a bit about training young people, having employed an incredible 45 apprentice carpenters at his business over the past 38 years. It was really great to talk with him, as well as his three current apprentices, about the importance of building the skills and talent in the Australian workforce to meet current and future skills gaps. First-year carpentry apprentices Nathan and Nicholas and second-year apprentice Brendan said that, with no shortage of work in the building industry, they felt confident they had great careers ahead of them. Nathan, 17, from Moruya, said everyone in his family was a tradie, and he wanted to leave school and do hands-on work.

It was so amazing to learn that every one of Robert's employees completed their carpentry apprenticeship with his company. He said his staff could see that there was plenty of work on offer and were enthused by the potential earnings for tradespeople. Established in 1985, Beach House Stairs is a wonderful family business that builds custom designed staircases, timber handrails, balustrades and benchtops. Small businesses like these are committed to training our young people and helping them find their path to a secure future, and, under Labor, they have our support.

It's great to see TAFE booming on the South Coast and the recent introduction of the TAFE Certificate II in Aeroskills, which is also fee free. The aeroskills course is providing our young people with a pathway to an exciting career as an avionics maintainer, to support defence industry jobs locally. We're a proud Navy town, home to HMAS Albatross, the fleet air arm, and HMAS Creswell, so it's really important that we have defence related TAFE courses on offer here to give local students an entry into the industry. Defence and defence industry are our biggest employers, and this aeroskills course will provide local students with an opportunity to fill in-demand roles, such as aircraft maintenance engineers and aircraft line maintenance workers. Through a mixture of theory and practical units, the new course will give students insight from industry experienced teachers to ensure planes—and helicopters, of course—fly smoothly and safely. Students will gain practical experience and develop specialist skills to give them an advantage in the job market, including working on real aircraft components on a variety of aircraft and working safely and sustainably in the industry.

You can clearly see that I have been on the ground, talking with students, employers and apprentices, and I can tell you free TAFE is going gangbusters in Gilmore. I have travelled from one end of my electorate to the other and listened to young people who are training at TAFE and listened to adults who are retraining and gaining new skills. I've been walking the streets of our villages and towns in Gilmore and talking with people who are reaping the real rewards of fee-free TAFE. I've spoken to builders who are under the pump, constructing hundreds of new homes in our fast-growing region. They are screaming out for tradies, from plasterers to brickies, roofers and more. We need to build more homes, we need more tradies and, to do that, we need to continue free TAFE.

As hundreds of students prepare to commence another semester of TAFE in my electorate, including free TAFE courses, I am extremely disappointed that the opposition leader will not support our fee-free TAFE bill. The opposition are showing their absolute disregard for young people and families in regional communities like the South Coast and are completely out of touch with the needs of young Australians. The opposition leader and the Liberals will cut free TAFE funding, and Australians will pay more for TAFE. The opposition will take opportunities away from thousands of hardworking Australians who are getting the skills they need for the jobs they want.

The Liberals have ripped the guts out of TAFE before, and they have made it clear they will do it again. Last time they were in government, we saw the damage that their disregard for the VET system and skilling Australians did. We can't risk the Liberals slashing pathways for workers to enter essential industries like health care, construction and tech again. We have a responsibility to help people here and now. We owe it to the next generation of Australians to build an economy that unlocks their talents and rewards their efforts.

That starts with equal access to education for every Australian, no matter their background or financial situation. Free TAFE is an investment in our future, and it's an investment in our people, ensuring all Australians have the skills and capacity to contribute to a thriving economy. The Liberals' failure to invest in skilling up our people will leave businesses stranded and Australians locked out of reaching their potential.

Supporting vocational education and TAFE training is what Labor does. With high-quality skills and training, we are building a better Australia. A reliable and trusted VET sector is critical for our economy. Under the Liberals, you won't get that. They destroyed TAFE, and under the Liberals my local TAFE campuses looked like a ghost town, as classes were slashed and teachers sacked. I should know; I worked there for over 10 years.

Despite us saving ordinary Australians thousands on TAFE fees, the deputy opposition leader had the nerve to label free TAFE 'wasteful spending'. She says free TAFE isn't working. Well, I can tell you that the Liberals have got it very wrong, because under Labor my local TAFE campuses across Gilmore are thriving. There is a TAFE in nearly every community across Australia, and every community in Australia deserves access to great vocational education and training.

Peter Dutton's demolition of TAFE would mean housing and energy projects couldn't get off the ground because of skills shortages. Businesses would be forced to look overseas for workers instead of employing Australians here at home. Education should not be a privilege. A Labor government will always stand up for public education and local jobs. The Liberals cut $3 billion of funding from the VET system and TAFE, clearly demonstrating they don't understand or value the importance of strong TAFEs in our local communities. More than a third of all the enrolments in free TAFE have been in regional and rural areas like Gilmore.

Public education runs through my veins, and TAFE holds a special place in my heart. I will always fight for public education and stand up against any efforts to undermine TAFE. There is a clear choice at this election. The opposition leader and the Liberals will cut free TAFE funding, and Australians will pay more for TAFE. Under the Albanese government, free TAFE is here to stay.

Long debate text truncated.

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.