2021-10-27 1 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 27 October 2021

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 1 Report 1 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG I present report No. 40 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 22 November 2021. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 26 October 2021. 2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 26 October 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 22 November 2021 as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1   Mr Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Cleaning up Political Donations) Bill 2021)    (Notice given 15 June 2021.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate mus t be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 2   Mr Leeser: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to telecommunications, and for related purposes. (Telecommunications Reform (Telstra, NBN and Other Providers) Bill 2021)    (Notice given 26 October 2021.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 3   Mr Albanese: To present a Bill for an Act to give Australian workers the right to same job, same pay, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021)    (Notice given 26 October 2021.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Deb ate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 4   Ms Sharkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes. (Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021 (No. 2))    (Notice given 26 October 2021.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 5   Mr Vasta: To move: That this House: (1) notes that the Government's support for child care helped Australian families during the height of the coronavirus pandemic and continues to support families as our economy grows; (2) further notes that the latest data shows more than $3 billion has been provided through the pandemic to keep services viable, staff in work and children in care; (3) recognises that women's workforce participation has reached a record high of 61.8 per cent; and (4) further recognises that the Government is investing more than $10.3 billion in the child care system this year, helping more than 1.2 million families.    (Notice given 23 June 2021.) Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Vasta—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committe e determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 6   Mr Husic: To move: That this House: (1) recognises that 2021 marks 75 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines; (2) celebrates the strength of the bilateral diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines over those 75 years; (3) reaffirms the strong relationship between Australia and the Philippines; and (4) acknowledges the importance of effective diplomatic relations with the Philippines, which are underpinned by our shared history and deep enduring relationship.    (Notice given 21 June 2021.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. Speech time limits— Mr Husic—5 minutes. Other Members—5 m inutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Orders of the day 1 International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People : Resumption of debate (from 25 October 2021—Mr Sharma, in continuation) on the motion of Mr Hayes—That this House: (1) notes that 29 November 2021 is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People as declared by the United Nations in 1977; (2) recognises the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self determination and a future built on peace, dignity, justice and security; (3) acknowledges the obstacles to the ongoing peace process, particularly the need for urgent action on issues such as settlements, Jerusalem, the Gaza blockade and the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories; (4) further recognises that the ongoing humanitarian situation in Palestine is far-reaching, with many in the Australian community affected by this ongoing conflict; and (5) calls on the Government to ensure Australia is working constructively to support security and human rights in Palestine, in advance of a just and enduring two-state solution in the Middle East. Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of thi s should continue on a future day. Notices 1   Mr van Manen: To move: That this House: (1) notes the Government's ongoing commitment to improving road safety through the establishment of the Road Safety Program (RSP); (2) recognises that the RSP supports the fast roll out of lifesaving road safety treatments on rural and regional roads and greater protection for vulnerable road users, like cyclists and pedestrians, in urban areas; (3) commends the Government for its funding in the recent budget to provide $3 billion over three years from 2020-21; and (4) acknowledges the 'use it or lose it' provision as part of the funding, requiring states and territories to use their funding within each six month tranche in order to receive their full allocation of funding for the next tranche, unless exceptional circumstances exist.    (Notice given 23 June 2021.) Time allotted—40 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr van Manen—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 2   Ms Ryan: To move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that: (a) over the past eight years of this Government, infrastructure funding to areas of growth has been neglected; (b) as revealed in September's Final Budget Outcome there has been another 12 months of broken infrastructure promises from the Government, with infrastructure spending totalling $656.5 million less than was promised; and (c) over eight long years of this Government, its infrastructure broken promises now total an incredible $7.4 billion; (2) recognises that this lack of funding has resulted in fewer roads, fewer public transport upgrades, longer commutes, less time at home and fewer jobs for Australians who need them; and (3) calls on the Government to provide adequate funding to infrastructure projects and build the roads and rail that Australians actually need.    (Notice given 25 October 2021.) Time allotted—50 minutes. Speech time limits— Ms Ryan—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 3   Dr Allen: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Australia is continuing to display international leadership on the issue of HIV/AIDS by co-facilitating the 2021 United Nations General Assembly High Level Meeting on HIV and AIDS; (b) this meeting took place from 8 to 10 June and covered the progress which had been made in reducing the impact of HIV since the last High Level Meeting in 2016; (c) the High Level Meeting coincides with a meeting of public health and political leaders in Australia on 17 June to discuss Agenda 2025: Ending HIV transmission in Australia; (d) testing and treatment services combined with successful leadership from governments and civil society mean that progression from HIV to AIDS is now relatively rare in Australia; (e) action is still needed to address rising HIV transmission among First Nations, trans and gender diverse people, and other emerging high-risk population groups; (f) gay and bisexual men continue to bear the burden of Australia's HIV epidemic and ongoing health education among this population group is needed, and; (g) further bipartisan political action and leadership is required to meet our national target of ending HIV transmission in Australia. (2) recognises and acknowledges: (a) the Agenda 2025: Ending HIV transmission in Australia strategy outlines the commitments needed to make Australia one of the first countries to eliminate HIV; (b) the journey that people have made through their diagnosis, treatment and experiences of living with HIV; (c) the tremendous efforts of peer educators, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists in developing treatment and prevention regimes that have improved the lives of people living with HIV; (d) the success of a bipartisan approach in Australia's health response; and (e) the tireless community advocates, civil society organisations and support groups that actively tackle stigma associated with HIV.    (Notice given 18 October 2021.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm. Speech time limits— Dr Allen—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices—con tinued 4   Dr Freelander: To move: That this House: (1) recognises that the early years are some of the most important in a child's life, in terms of their cognitive and social development; (2) notes that a child's health outcomes can be heavily influenced from the period of preconception, and the lives and lifestyles of both biological parents; (3) commends the work of Australian medical professionals who champion the First 1000 Days framework, a model that is aimed at improving the physical and mental health of parents from pre‑pregnancy and up until a child reaches two years of age; and (4) implores the Government to adopt a national approach to the First 1000 Days initiative, to improve health outcomes in our future generations.    (Notice given 25 October 2021.) Time allotted—40 minutes. Speech time limits— Dr Freelander—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a futur e day. 5   Mr Goodenough: To move: That this House: (1) notes with concern the long standing religious persecution of members of the Baha'i Faith in Iran; (2) expresses alarm at the raids on Baha'i homes and businesses and the increase in court cases against Baha'is since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic; (3) further calls on the Iranian Government to ensure that Baha'is enjoy the same rights as other citizens and that their belief and practice are not criminalised; (4) supports the 16 December 2020 resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which called on the Islamic Republic of Iran to uphold the human rights of all its citizens; (5) condemns the recent Iranian court judgments upholding the confiscation of homes and lands belonging to 27 Baha'is in the village of Ivel; and (6) calls on the Iranian judicial authorities to ensure that these lands and homes are restored to their rightful owners, and that no other Baha'i citizens have their properties confiscated due to their religion.    (Notice given 23 June 2021.) Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Goodenough—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 6   Ms Sharkie: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) a delegation from the Regional, Rural and Remote Communications Coalition (RRRCC) has approached Members of the 46th Parliament via a virtual delegation to highlight priorities for improving regional telecommunications; (b) the RRRCC is a group of 21 like-minded organisations and advocacy bodies which have joined together to highlight their collective concern about the lack of equitable access to reliable and quality telecommunication in regional Australia; (c) telecommunications is an essential service in a modern world, supporting social connectivity, business activity, and the delivery of health and education services; (d) every Australian, irrespective of where they live or work, should have access to quality, reliable, and affordable voice and data services with customer support guarantees; and (e) there is ongoing inequity in the access to telecommunications experienced by Australians living in regional, rural, and remote areas, compared to their urban counterparts; and (2) calls upon the Government to ensure that regional, rural, and remote Australia is best positioned to retain people and grow in the long term, by: (a) establishing a rural, regional and remote communications fund to resource ongoing investment in regional telecommunications through the Mobile Black Spot Program, Regional Connectivity Program and through state and territory co-investment programs; (b) continuing its commitment to expanding the mobile network in regional Australia through the Mobile Black Spot Program or a similar program, (such programs must continue to promote competition by requiring open access for all networks and the criteria for such programs reflect changing technologies and commercial circumstances); (c) ensuring no mobile network user is disadvantaged by the switching off of the 3G network; (d) having the Australian Communications and Media Authority investigate and monitor widespread mobile outages in regional and remote Australia, and the reliability of mobile infrastructure; (e) ensuring there are adequate upgrade plans and pathways for regional Australians using ADSL services that provide access to higher quality or equivalent fixed broadband services; (f) bringing about further enhancements to NBN Sky Muster in order to reflect consumer and small business needs, including more affordable plans, and a mobility product; (g) legislating telecommunications as an essential service in all states and territories, recognising telecommunications providers as 'essential users' in natural disaster areas, and ensuring the rollout of NBN Disaster Satellite Services appropriately complement MBSP 5A upgrades to power supplies at base stations; (h) ensuring any alternative technologies for voice service delivery be proven to have greater reliability and performance quality for regional, rural, and remote consumers; (i) creating appropriate minimum service guarantees and performance benchmarks for connection, fault repair and appointment keeping timeframes for NBN and other statutory infrastructure providers, (these obligations and timeframes must support maximum connectivity during natural disaster events and customers must be adequately compensated when baseline timeframes are exceeded); (j) introducing adequate performance quality metrics for all services, including NBN Sky Muster, monitored against independent benchmarks; (k) committing to funding the regional tech hub service beyond the current one-year funding period, and working with the RRRCC and state and local governments to identify and deliver digital capacity building needs beyond the remit of the regional tech hub project; (l) creating a targeted, concessional NBN broadband service to support low-income residents in regional, rural and remote areas, and reconfiguring the existing telecommunication allowance to meet the needs of low-income, mobile-only consumers; (m) supporting remote communities, in particular Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities, to have access to affordable telecommunications equipment so they can maximise access to services such as medical services; and (n) requiring retail service providers to be transparent about the limitations of the more affordable services they provide to low-income consumers.    (Notice given 25 October 2021.) Time allotted—40 minutes. Speech time limits— Ms Sharkie—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 7   Mr Connelly: To move: That this House: (1) recognises the benefits a career in the Australian Defence Force provides through skills, education, training and experience; (2) notes: (a) the Australian Defence Force's objective to protect Australia and that those recruited to deliver on this objective put their lives on the line for our country; and (b) that Defence recruits the best and brightest and offers varying pathways for individuals to join and serve our nation; and (3) acknowledges the sacrifice our personnel and their families make for a career in the Australian Defence Force and our nation's eternal gratitude for all those who have served past and present.    (Notice given 18 October 2021.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm. Speech time limits— Mr Connelly—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 11 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP Speaker of the House of Representatives 27 October 2021 DELEGATION REPORTS 6 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 65th Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly 6 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 65th annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in London from 12 to 14 October 2019. BILLS 6 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Superannuation Outcomes For Australians and Helping Australian Businesses Invest) Bill 2021 6

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Superannuation Outcomes For Australians and Helping Australian Businesses Invest) Bill 2021

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:32 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill implements a number of measures which will improve the flexibility and equity of the superannuation system, assist first home buyers, reduce costs and complexity for self-managed superannuation funds and support Australian businesses to invest. Schedule 1 removes the subsection in the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 which exempts an employer from their obligation to pay the superannuation guarantee if their employee's earnings are less than $450 in a calendar month. This exemption was introduced in 1992 to reduce the administrative burden on employers, however significant technological advancements in recent years have significantly diminished this burden. Importantly, recent superannuation reforms, such as the Protecting Your Super package, have also reduced the eroding impact of high fees and insurance premiums on small superannuation balances, paving the way for the removal of the $450 rule. The removal of this threshold will improve equity in the superannuation system and increase the retirement savings of around 300,000 low-income workers employed in casual or part-time roles, around two-thirds of which are women. Schedule 2 increases the maximum amount of voluntary contributions that can be released under the First Home Super Saver Scheme from $30,000 to $50,000. Other policy settings, including the $15,000 annual limit on eligible contributions, will not be changed. This increase recognises that deposit requirements have increased with house price growth over recent years and this change will help first home buyers to save a deposit more quickly. Schedule 3 reduces the eligibility age to make downsizer contributions into superannuation from 65, at present, to 60 years of age. This will allow more Australians nearing retirement to make a one-off post-tax contribution of up to $300,000 per person when they sell their family home. It will improve flexibility for older Australians to contribute to their superannuation savings. This may encourage more older Australians to downsize to homes that better meet their needs, ultimately increasing the supply of larger homes for young families. Schedule 4 supports the repeal of the work test for nonconcessional and salary sacrificed contributions to superannuation which will be implemented through changes to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 and Retirement Savings Accounts Regulations 1997. To that end, schedule 4 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to preserve the work test for personal deductible contributions made by individuals aged between 67 and 75. It will also make amendments necessary to allow eligible individuals to make nonconcessional superannuation contributions under the bring-forward rule. These changes will improve flexibility for older Australians to make or receive contributions to their superannuation. It will allow retirees, who have not had the benefits of a mature super system throughout their working life, and may have accumulated savings outside of super, to get more out of the super system. The changes build on the government's previous reforms to the age rules on superannuation contributions, further increasing the ability of older Australians to make contributions to their superannuation. Schedule 5 will reduce red tape and costs for self-managed superannuation funds and small APRA regulated funds by providing trustees with greater choice in how they calculate exempt current pension income. Trustees will be allowed to use the proportionate method to calculate their exempt current pension income when their fund is fully in the retirement phase for part of, but not the entire, income year. This delivers on a 2019-20 budget commitment to simplify reporting for these funds by streamlining administrative requirements for these calculations. Schedule 6 extends the temporary full expensing measure introduced by the government in the 2020-21 budget by a further 12 months. Rather than ending on 30 June 2022, eligible businesses will now be able to take advantage of the incentive until 30 June 2023. This will allow businesses with aggregated annual turnover or total income of less than $5 billion to deduct the full cost of eligible depreciable assets acquired from 7.30 pm on 6 October 2020 and first used or installed ready for use by 30 June 2023. This will continue to support our economic recovery by encouraging businesses to make further investments. The time limited nature of the measure provides a strong incentive to bring forward investment projects before it expires. All other elements of the temporary full expensing measure remain unchanged, including eligibility. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 7

Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:39 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 will ensure that ordinary Australians who seek justice through the class actions system receive a fair and reasonable portion of the proceeds of successful class actions supported by a litigation funder. Australia's class action regime and litigation funding regimes must provide fair and equitable outcomes for all Australians. Yet, all too often, the current system does not meet these benchmarks. The recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court in the Banksia Securities Ltd case is a stark reminder of the egregious conduct that can occur when those who work in the legal system lose sight of the best interests of their clients. As the Victorian Supreme Court noted, such conduct 'corrupted the proper administration of justice.' The government has long been concerned by the returns being made by litigation funders at the expense of class members. In 2019 the Australian Law Reform Commission found when litigation funders were involved in a class action the median return to plaintiffs was just 51 per cent. Conversely, when a funder was not involved, the median return was 85 per cent. Last year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services concluded that in many cases litigation funders appear to be making windfall profits that are disproportionate to the costs incurred and the risks undertaken in the relevant proceedings. These findings are echoed by judgements of the courts. Just this year, in the case of Cheryl Wittenbury v Vocation Ltd, together the lawyers and funders received nearly 50 per cent of the settlement sum. Such a state of affairs runs counter to the compensatory nature of the class-action system, which is primarily designed to vindicate the rights of class members. This bill achieves a number of key objectives therefore. First, the bill requires claimants to agree in writing to be members of a scheme and to be bound by the scheme's constitution. This requirement for active consent will incentivise book building by litigation funders and ensure that claimants who do not want to participate in a class action do not need to actively opt out. Second, the bill requires a court to approve or vary the proposed distribution of claim proceeds to ensure that members of the class-action litigation funding scheme receive a fair and reasonable share. In assessing this, the bill will establish a rebuttable presumption that a distribution would not meet this statutory threshold if more than 30 per cent of the claim proceeds in total is to be paid or distributed to nonmembers of the scheme, such as distributed to the funders or lawyers. It will also require the court to consider a number of factors, including the funders' commercial return compared to the reasonable costs to the funder incurred for the proceedings. This provides a clear signal that the community expects that the primary purpose of the class-action regime is to vindicate the rights of ordinary Australians. At the same time, the flexibility of the court to do justice in a particular matter will be preserved. Third, to assist courts in navigating the complexities of legal costs and funder commissions, the bill ensures that courts consider the reports of independent experts in the representations of contradictors representing the interests of scheme members when appointed. This bill provides that the costs of these experts are borne by funders, unless the court determines otherwise. Fourth, this bill will reduce the use of common fund orders as a way of funders to expand their portion of the settlement by extending their commission rate to all members of a class, including those that have not agreed to sign a funding agreement. The bill does not bar the court from making an order to share the costs of a proceeding amongst all members who benefit from the action though. The use of common fund orders by courts is a mechanism to amend the funding commission rate has now been superseded by the bill's express power to vary the funding agreement. Jointly, the proposed bill and current court orders provide a solution to the free-rider problem but, at the same time, preventing those windfall gains to litigation funders. Finally, the bill seeks to implement a consistent approach to class actions across all jurisdictions. This will maximise protection for class members throughout Australia. The bill adopts an expansive approach seeking to extend protection to class-action litigation funding schemes for class actions in any Australian court. This avoids the risk of forum shopping by funders filing in courts which do not have the same level of protection for class members. This bill and its reforms will ensure that Australia's class-action system operates as originally intended whilst ensuring the viability of litigation funding agreements that provide ordinary Australians with access to justice. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill, as is a requirement of the Corporations Agreement 2002, and, as always, full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021 9

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:45 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (the scheme). The amendments form part of the government's response to recommendations from the Final report: second year review of the National Redress Scheme (the review) undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. The amendments increase access to the scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse by expanding funder-of-last-resort arrangements and form part of the government's ongoing commitment to improving the scheme. The scheme was established in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (the royal commission). The scheme was established by the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (the act). The scheme's legislation requires that a review of the operation of the scheme be undertaken following the second and eighth anniversaries of the scheme. The Final report: second year review of the National Redress Scheme,presented byMs Robyn Kruk AO, makes 38 recommendations to increase access to redress, including through expanding funder-of-last-resort arrangements, and to improve the scheme's operation, making it more trauma-informed, efficient and ultimately more survivor focused. In undertaking the review, survivor voices were front and centre, and Ms Kruk consulted extensively with survivors, advocacy groups, support services, institutions and Commonwealth and state and territory governments. It is essential that the needs of survivors are being met; that the scheme is operating effectively; and that the unique and evolving challenges in administering such a measure are being addressed. This year, the parliament passed two separate pieces of legislation to improve the scheme. The first piece of legislation addressed minor and technical issues associated with the administration of the scheme. The second piece of legislation was in direct response to recommendations made as part of the second year review. This legislation made survivor focused improvements as an initial tranche of action on review recommendations. The second piece of legislation provided for an advance payment of $10,000 for elderly and terminally ill applicants, changed the indexation arrangements to be fairer for applicants, removed the requirement to provide a statutory declaration when making an application, enabled an extension of time a person has to accept their offer of redress or request a review, and authorised redress to be paid in instalments at an applicant's request. The scheme's establishment is an acknowledgement by the Australian government and state and territory governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institutional settings was wrong, a betrayal of trust, and should never have happened. The scheme is an important step towards healing and provides a monetary payment as a tangible means of recognising the wrong survivors have suffered; access to counselling or psychological services; and a direct personal response from the institutions responsible where a survivor wants that to occur. Over the past three years, the scheme has secured the participation of all states and territories, and as of 15 October this year, 526 non-government institutions are participating in the scheme. This means the scheme now covers over 69,000 sites across Australia. In addition nearly 6,400 payments totalling over $551 million have been paid to survivors to date. Unfortunately, some survivors continue to be unable to access redress through the scheme because their institution is not participating. This may be due to a number of factors, including their refusal to join, or that they no longer exist. The government remains committed to encouraging all institutions named in applications to fulfil their moral obligation to join the scheme. For those institutions that choose not to join the scheme, the government has introduced financial consequences, in order to encourage them to join. This includes institutions being restricted from accessing future Commonwealth grant funding and possible loss of their charitable status and associated tax concessions. It is important that where an institution can join the scheme, that it does so as a matter of urgency and takes responsibility for past abuse by providing redress to survivors. Some survivors are unable to access redress through the scheme as the institution responsible for their abuse no longer exists, or the institution cannot meet the necessary requirements to be participate in the scheme. Currently, applications from these survivors cannot be progressed, and this is why changes to the scheme's funder-of-last-resort provisions are critical. The Australian government recognises the views of survivors and other key stakeholders and has listened to the concerns raised. We are prioritising initial action on 25 of the 38 review recommendations in full or in part and investing over $80 million over four years in the 2021-22 budget to support implementation of these recommendations. Following the government's interim response to the review the parliament passed an initial package of legislative amendments, as I have outlined. The more substantial changes recommended by the review required further negotiations with state and territory governments as scheme partners and consultation with survivors and their advocates. This bill reflects the next legislative changes in response to the review. It expands funder-of-last-resort arrangements, a significant recommendation made as part of the second-year review and one in which the government has been very public in its support for. The bill also strengthens the legislative basis on which institutions are publicly named as having not joined the scheme. Funder of last resort Currently, a person can only access redress under funder-of-last-resort arrangements where a government is equally responsible for the abuse of the person. This bill recognises that regardless of whether a government was involved in the abuse of the person, where the institution responsible for the abuse no longer exists, the affected survivors should have the opportunity to access redress. As such, this bill expands the funder-of-last-resort arrangements to allow state and territory governments to be a funder of last resort in this circumstance. Wherever possible, an overarching institution that is affiliated with the defunct institution will be called on to take responsibility. However, where there is no such parent institution, governments can step in and enable access to redress. The bill also provides that a government can be a funder of last resort for an institution that is unable to meet the legislative requirements to participate in the scheme. Presently, an institution cannot be declared as participating in the scheme unless there are reasonable grounds to expect that they can discharge their liabilities and obligation under the scheme. An institution that does not have the financial capacity to pay its redress liabilities would not meet this requirement. There are currently 21 institutions listed on the scheme's website that fall within this category of not meeting the legislative requirements to participate. This means survivors naming these institutions in their applications cannot currently access redress. Expanding funder-of-last-resort arrangements in these circumstances is the right thing to do for survivors. The bill provides the ability for these institutions to partly participate in the scheme. Although unable to fund their redress liability, partly participating institutions can perform other important functions including providing a direct personal response to survivors. This recognises that many institutions want to do the right thing by survivors and do what they can to ensure a survivor can access all three parts of redress available through the scheme. The Australian government will contribute half of the funding for the expanded funder-of-last-resort arrangements, under a 50-50 cost-shared model with the relevant state and territory governments. This demonstrates the Australian government's commitment to ensuring as many survivors as possible can access redress. The expanding funder-of-last-resort arrangements aligns with recommendation 5.1 of the second year review that allows governments to become a funder of last resort for survivors that would otherwise be unable to access redress or pursue compensation through the civil legal system. These arrangements will not cover institutions that can join the scheme but choose not to. These institutions should join and provide survivors with the redress that they deserve. Institutions shirking their moral obligations will continue to be encouraged to join the scheme, will be publicly named, and will be subject to the financial consequences mentioned earlier. Public n aming i nstitutions that do not join the s cheme Institutions named in applications to the scheme that have not joined within a reasonable time frame are publicly named on the scheme's website. Publicly naming institutions provides survivors who have applied for redress, and those considering applying for redress, with information on the institutions' participation in the scheme and is a lever to further encourage institutions to join the scheme. The bill provides that institutions named in applications to the scheme, or institutions the scheme operator has a reasonable belief has a connection with the abuse of the person, can be publicly named if they do not join. The measure does not change the existing naming practice. It provides a stronger and more administratively efficient basis to publicly name institutions, as well as making it clear to institutions that they will be publicly named should they be able to join the scheme, but choose not to join. This measure supports increased institutional participation in the scheme, which in turn will allow more survivors to access redress. The government has worked extensively with the states and territories on this bill, and in line with the scheme's governance arrangements, all state and territory governments have agreed to the amendments. This bill is a second tranche of legislative amendments to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018following the review. The Australian government is pleased to outline the important measures in this bill and will continue to work with scheme stakeholders to bring forward further improvements in response to the recommendations of the review for the benefit of survivors. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 11 COMMITTEES Privileges and Members' Interests Committee 11 Report 11 09:58 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That the House: (1) notes the legal action taken in the Federal Court of Australia by ClubsNSW against Mr Troy Stolz, known as Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales v Stolz; (2) notes the report of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests on its inquiry into whether the legal action raises issues of parliamentary privilege or contempt such that the House should formally claim privilege and intervene in the court proceedings to assert the protection of parliamentary privilege; (3) considers that email communications relating to ClubsNSW between the office of the Member for Clark and Mr Stolz, between 17 December 2019 and 1 December 2020, are likely to fall within the definition of 'proceedings of Parliament' under subsection 16(2) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (the Act); (4) notes the restrictions placed by subsection 16(3) of the Act on the treatment of proceedings in Parliament; (5) acknowledges that interpretation of the Act, and therefore determination of the application of parliamentary privilege in court proceedings, is a matter for the courts; and (6) authorises the Speaker to take steps to ensure that the interests of the House are represented in this matter before the courts, such that parliamentary proceedings are appropriately protected as provided by the Act. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Ms Catherine King 00AMR I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:00 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark [by video link] I thank the committee for their attention to this matter, and I obviously welcome the outcome that the committee has recommended—that is, that the House authorise the Speaker to take steps to ensure that the interests of the House are represented in the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales v Stolz, such that parliamentary proceedings are appropriately protected, as provided under the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Obviously I support the motion, and I hope it will have the support of all members of the House. I think it would be fair to say that all parliamentarians in Canberra—in fact, parliamentarians in parliaments right around the country and indeed even overseas in Commonwealth countries—will be very grateful for the increased clarity that this episode promises to bring to the issue of parliamentary privilege. There are precious few precedents and precious little case law in Commonwealth parliaments around the issue of parliamentary privilege, which possibly helps to explain why we are needing to clear things up right now. What is perfectly clear, though, is that the protection of communications between the community and parliamentarians is vitally important, especially when those communications are directly related to the work of the parliamentarian in the parliament. Of course, that's what this is all about; that's the origin of why we are standing in the parliament discussing this motion today. This is all to do with a gentleman of New South Wales called Mr Troy Stolz—a brave gentleman, I would hasten to add. Mr Stolz is a former ClubsNSW employee. He got in contact with me in late 2019 and was in regular contact with me for some time after that—or with my office, I should say, more accurately. During that interaction, Mr Stolz provided me with documents obtained in connection with his employment at ClubsNSW and, in particular, a board paper detailing how the vast majority of registered clubs of New South Wales were not, or at least were not, complying with anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing legislation. This was contained in a ClubsNSW board paper. This was hard evidence of widespread noncompliance in New South Wales registered clubs with very important federal legislation—legislation designed to rein in and stamp out money laundering and terrorism financing. Mr Stolz came to me with the express intention of seeking to get me to ventilate these concerns and to present that hard evidence in the parliament, and that I did. In fact, in early 2020, I stood in the House and I ventilated this information and I sought to table the board paper that Mr Stolz had provided me with. In other words, there is an unambiguous and direct link from his approach to me doing my work in the parliament. Of course, ClubsNSW have subsequently taken legal action against Mr Stoltz, and the Federal Court has ruled that the communications between Mr Stolz and me may be used as evidence in the court case. This, of course, is what I dispute. This is why I referred the matter to the House, and this is the matter that now is the substance of this motion before the House. Obviously, there are so many alarming dimensions to this whole issue about Mr Stolz and, quite frankly, the threat to parliamentary privilege. And that's not just in the House of Representatives; there's the threat to parliamentary privilege that would come from an adverse precedent here for parliaments right around Australia and right around the Commonwealth countries. Let's remember that the powers and protections in place under the Parliamentary Privileges Act enable the parliament to carry out its functions properly, including debating matters of importance freely, discussing grievances and discussing investigations effectively without interference from the government, the courts or anyone else. This is important; this matters. We must be very careful not to allow any precedent to be established to diminish these very important protections. If the parliament does not seek to intervene in some way in the current matter of ClubsNSW versus Stolz then there's a very real risk that parliamentary privilege will be diminished in some way. But even more broadly than what we need to do our jobs—what the parliament needs to function effectively—the protections afforded by parliamentary privilege are actually needed by the public. It's not their privilege, but it has the effect of protecting people in the parliament to ventilate important issues when they would otherwise be voiceless—in particular, whistleblowers like Mr Stolz. Let's not forget the substantive matter here. The substantive matter is not that Troy Stolz gave me a board paper from ClubsNSW. The substantive matter—and, as far as I'm aware, still a matter uninvestigated by federal authorities, including AUSTRAC—is that almost all registered clubs in New South Wales are, or at least were, not complying with anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing legislation, and that ClubsNSW, the peak body, was effectively running a protection racket for them and is still trying to run a protection racket for them right now by trying to silence and destroy Mr Stolz in the Federal Court. This is the substantive matter. That should be what everyone is running around about and which should be on the front page of the newspapers. The issue of parliamentary privilege should just be taken for granted; we shouldn't need to be taking this action but, of course, we are. Of course this isn't the first time that I have come into the parliament, informed directly by brave whistleblowers, and brought to the public's attention issues of great public importance in cases where the whistleblowers had nowhere else to turn—like in the case of Crown, where whistleblowers had tried to get traction with Victoria Police, the Victorian gambling regulator, AUSTRAC, the Federal Police and Border Force, or with anyone else who might have had some jurisdiction. In the end, it was left for them to come to me and for me to stand up in the parliament, with the absolute privilege that I do enjoy in the parliament, to ventilate those concerns. That's one of the few reasons why Crown casino is in such strife at the moment: I had a group of poker machine technicians come to me in 2017 who gave me hard evidence on the misconduct at Crown, including money laundering, poker machine tampering, domestic violence and gun running. I was able to table a USB in the parliament with their recorded testimony. More recently, a brave whistleblower came to me to talk about what was going on at the private terminal at Tullamarine—how aircraft were coming in with some foreign national who had 15 bags for a weekend at Crown casino in Melbourne. Heaven knows what was in those bags—presumably cash to be laundered through Crown casino. More recently, it was only because of a brave Victorian gambling regulator that I was able to reveal—and, again, attempted to table in the parliament—the video footage of an ALDI shopping bag with a couple of million dollars in it being money laundered in the Sun City junket room at Crown casino. I don't rehash all of this history to big note myself, I do it to honour the brave whistleblowers who have come to members of parliament with their concerns in the public interest. Those approaches have led directly to the work of parliamentarians in the parliament—an unbroken chain from approach, discussion and handover of material to the MP standing up and ventilating it in the parliament and in the public interest, protected by the absolute privilege of the privileges act. That's what we're here today to defend—to hopefully pass this motion and authorise the Speaker to somehow intervene in ClubsNSW versus Stolz so that the communications with me not be allowed to be used in that case and to set a very powerful precedent for all parliaments of the Commonwealth right around not just this country but the world that parliamentary privilege is real, it's powerful, it's effective and it will be used to protect the parliament and to protect the functioning of the parliament. 10:10 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I won't detain the House long; I know there's important business about to occur. I simply want to thank the Privileges Committee for dealing with this. It shows, as most members are aware, that the Privileges Committee has continued to act in a nonpartisan way and to make sure that it is defending the effective functions of this House. This resolution is really important for this reason: if we're to have free debate in this House, it is essential that people be protected in their communications with us. Anything less than that means we no longer have free debate in this House. For a long time it's been the case that, if issues arose during a period of sittings, Speakers would prefer there to be direct authority from the House before they took action with the courts. This resolution provides exactly that authority for the Speaker to be able to make representations on behalf of the House to the courts on the exact issue that the member for Clark just spoke about. There are times when the House is not sitting, either because we're in a long recess or we're in a caretaker period, when, with this resolution, the Speaker should be in no doubt that there is a clear request from the House that we want privilege protected when parliamentary privilege is asserted, we want to make sure that it's followed through on and we want to make sure that it is well understood that it's the view of the House that free debate is only protected if people feel confident about being able to come to members of parliament and provide information that might otherwise be confidential. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 13 BUSINESS Rearrangement 13 10:12 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I seek leave to move the following motion: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business orders of the day relating to the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2021 and the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021 standing in the name of the Member for Warringah being called on immediately, debated together and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House. Leave not granted. Ms STEGGALL 175696 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business orders of the day relating to the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2021 and the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021 standing in the name of the Member for Warringah being called on immediately, debated together and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House. We need to suspend standing orders so that we may debate these climate change bills. We are less than a week out from the Olympics of international policy, the Conference of the Parties 26 in Glasgow. The UN Emissions Gap Report was released today. Current pledges have us on track for 2.7 degrees of warming. The alarm bells are ringing. It's a code red. World leaders need to come together and commit to significant emissions reductions by 2030. It's time to stop playing politics with our future and listen to the science. The report makes clear that cuts of at least 55 per cent by 2030 are needed. The world needs an orderly transition away from fossil fuels. Australia needs a plan for an orderly transition away from fossil fuels. But we don't have one. Yesterday we were presented with a slideshow of graphs and no new commitment to 2030, no increase in investment in clean technologies, no education or training program to assist workers and communities worried about their future, and no process or programs to ensure scientists, experts and communities have a voice and are part of the road map to net zero. There are moments in history when leaders have the opportunity to show what they're made of, and this is one of them. This is the time to join nations of high ambition and restore our international standing. I welcome the government's commitment to net zero by 2050 and I thank all those who have campaigned relentlessly and pushed for that minimum commitment. But it's a baby step, and it will be meaningless if it's not backed by actual transition. Technology, business and investment need policy certainty. That is the purpose of parliament—to ensure that we have a robust debate and pass legislation that addresses the challenges ahead. We need to set Australia up. That's why it's so urgent that we debate and vote on the climate change bills. We must legislate a clear framework to enable a clear, sensible, cost-effective transition—one that is based on expert advice and listens to the regions and impacted communities. If you believe it, legislate it. Anything less than this is passing the buck on to the next generation. We need to pass the bills, not the buck. The government wants to ignore the proven technologies that we have now, that are ready now, and instead wants to focus on hypothetical technologies that have failed to deliver—carbon capture and storage—and hope that they will somehow offset continuing business as usual. We can't commit to net zero but approve new coal and gas fields. We can't present a 129-page pamphlet to address the biggest security, economic and environmental threat we face. To put things in perspective: the United Kingdom's plan, as required under their Climate Change Act, is 21 documents and some 1,868 pages long. It has heat pump grants, EV incentives and plans for ending gas boiler and fossil fuel powered vehicle sales. It's Treasury reviewed and climate change committee approved. It has a pathway for every sector to 2037. What does Australia have? We have a 15-page PowerPoint slideshow and a 129-page information brochure that is empty of actual substance. That's why this motion needs to pass, so we can debate the climate change bills. It's very important that we put this behind us. We need to lock net zero into law and lock in a framework that will ensure proper planning, accountability, integrity, transparency and the most efficient pathway possible. That's what these bills deliver. It's worked overseas; it is a proven model. The United Kingdom have had their Climate Change Act since 2008. It has directly contributed to emissions reduction and their transition to low-emissions technologies. They are on track for 68 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. Their framework works, and that's why we need it as well. Our economy is badly exposed to climate impacts. Simultaneously, it's uniquely positioned to thrive in a net zero world. Deloitte Access Economics has forecast there will be 880,000 fewer jobs by 2070 if we leave climate change unchecked. The Business Council of Australia has commissioned Deloitte to model what will happen if we do act. Remarkably, we can add $890 billion to the economy, almost 200,000 jobs, and households will be $5,000 better off per year. Importantly, if we adopt a stronger 2030 target of at least 50 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels, we will add $210 billion. These figures are dependent on policy certainty and confidence. We can provide this policy certainty with a debate and a vote on the climate change bills. The economic case is compelling; there is no doubt. That's why every sector of the Australian economy is demanding more action from the government. From unions to academics to health professionals to business to communities, they have all lent their voices to those of mine and my colleagues here on the crossbench to call for the bills to be debated in this House and passed. There have been 6½ thousand submissions to the inquiry into these bills, with 99.9 per cent in support. Businesses, most importantly, want certainty. They want a pathway out of COVID and towards a new resilient economy. We cannot keep putting obstacles in their path. The Business Council of Australia said the bill will be 'critical to mapping out a pathway to net zero'. Responsible Investment Association Australasia said the bill is 'integral to providing certainty to investors'. We need to smooth the way for business, and that can only be done with clear legislation. Today we can debate this important measure. We can put the climate wars to bed. Your power in this place is to actually debate and pass meaningful legislation. We know that two in three coal jobs will disappear in the next two decades, whether the Nationals like it or not. We have been warned. Change is coming, and we must plan for the fair employment transition for these communities, not sell them fantasies that their industries will be around for ever. We must protect people, not old industries. We must be prepared, and that can only be done with clear legislation. So I call on the members of this parliament who tell their communities that they are here for climate action, that they believe in the science: this is your opportunity for your words to be met with action. I urge you to vote in support of this motion. Australian climate policy needs to be taken out of the hands of the National Party and openly debated in parliament—to get past the blockers. The government can allow debate today and an open vote on the climate change bill, like we had for the same-sex marriage vote, and then members can represent their communities. They can vote in favour of a sensible, proven solution to climate policy impasse. We can stop passing the buck for future generations. I urge members of this place to support the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? 10:21 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I am pleased to second this motion, and I commend the member for Warringah for bringing it to the House, and I do so as a representative of a rural and regional Australian electorate. It is time to debate and vote on this bill, a bill which sets out a clear framework through which we can pursue a bright economic agenda in regional Australia in response to climate change. This bill sets out in law a commitment that the vast majority of Australians support—that we will decarbonise our economy by the middle of the century. The government told us this week that, finally, it has committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050. What this bill does is require that the government of the day, whether it be this government, the next government or any government that follows, has detailed plans to meet legislated emissions reduction targets. That's why it is so important. It gives our nation confidence that any government—this one or those that follow—will do this. I worked closely with the member for Warringah to make sure this bill would actually deliver for rural and regional Australians in a transparent way, not in a secret way and not in a fingers-crossed-and-let's-hope-we-make-it kind of way. I've inserted a regional economic safeguard mechanism that requires the new climate commission to make sure that regional Australia secures an equitable share of the economic benefits of a net zero transition, and we have just heard the member for Warringah lay out so articulately what those possibilities are for economic growth. I've also inserted a regions-first clause that requires the climate commission to implement a strategy to maximise the economic benefits for rural and regional Australia in the transition to net zero. I want rural and regional Australians to listen and think about this, because this gives us the guarantees that the government is not giving us right now. The Business Council of Australia estimates, as the member for Warringah just told us, there could be $890 billion on the table for us to be better off with a net zero economy. This bill would ensure that the regions maximise their share of that incredible opportunity before us. I've also inserted a regions-at-the-table rule that says that the board of the new climate commission must have expertise in regional development. This is the bill we should be debating and voting on today. This is the bill that would take us to Glasgow with credibility. More importantly, it would take us to the future with certainty. Regional Australians have every right to feel completely let down by the coalition government right now. The economic opportunities for regional Australia from the growth of zero carbon industries are simply enormous. The government promised a detailed plan to capture that opportunity, but yesterday the Prime Minister gave us no such plan. The Prime Minister seemingly announced nothing at all for the regions—zero new policies, zero new investments and zero new opportunities for regional Australia. They've had eight years in power to figure this out. The parliament could legislate this bill today. Members on all sides could vote today if they wanted to. Australia is lagging at the back of the pack when it comes to climate action, and now we are not even at the starting line when it comes to clarity and certainty. Right now, farmers in Germany own 10 per cent of all renewable energy generation—10 per cent! The first loads of green steel have already rolled off production lines in the factories of Sweden! Tesla's Gigafactory in the USA is already churning out lithium-ion batteries and employing 10,000 people in the process. This could be happening right here, right now. This really distresses me. If we pass this bill, and others like it—like my Australian Local Power Agency Bill that's sitting before this parliament too—there could be regional Australian industries and regional Australian jobs, but these opportunities are sailing right by us, because this government is incapable of offering up detailed economic plans for our regions. There is no plan to make sure regional Australians see the benefits in the renewable energy boom that's coming. There is no plan to help the timber mills of my electorate to transition off gas and onto cheap renewables. There is no plan to guarantee that bushfire affected communities in my electorate will have community batteries and energy security. The National Party has struck a secret deal with the Liberals over this issue, and, apparently, they have nothing to say for regional communities beyond a Productivity Commission review. I welcome a review, but it is neither a plan nor a blueprint for regional Australia. I commend this motion. 10:26 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I'm elated to be able to speak against this motion. I do so for a very simple reason. I think I must be one of the few people who have actually read the bill. Many of my constituents and constituents in other areas have contacted their representatives to talk about the member for Warringah's bill and whether we would vote in favour of it. Now we have a motion wanting to bring the bills on. I actually read the bill and tried to understand what it was trying to achieve and what its objective was. It's quite clear what its plan is: it's to establish a new bureaucracy. If you actually look at the detail of the bill, what it talks about is building a bureaucracy so that they can then go on to develop a plan. It isn't a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it isn't a plan to improve the Australian economy and it isn't a plan to take the Australian community with us. I'll show you what a plan is: it's the plan that the Prime Minister tabled in the parliament yesterday—130 pages that goes through, step-by-step, how we're going to work towards delivering a net zero target by 2050 for the Australian community. It is a plan that is comprehensive. In fact, it's the first economy-wide plan to achieve net zero by 2050 that has ever been presented by a government in this country. That is a critical change from the past. By comparison, the member for Warringah's bill focuses on how we build a bureaucracy to be empowered over this parliament to make those decisions for us. Make no mistake, I am a democrat and proudly a democrat. The foundation of the Morrison government's approach is to make sure that we take positions to the Australian people, we get them endorsed at an election and then we go on and implement them. The alternative under the member of Warringah's bill that she presented previously is to create a new climate czar and a series of bureaucrats that would literally have veto powers over this parliament. That is not just an attack on this parliament—though it is—it is an attack on the Australian people and their capacity to be able to have a voice, to have a discussion and to be part of the process of considering and developing policy to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. To her credit, the Member for Warringah outlined this in her speech only moments ago. She spoke explicitly about taking climate policy 'out of the hands' of democratically elected representatives. Frankly, I can't imagine the members of even the Labor Party would agree with such a plan to take climate change policy out of the hands of democratically elected representatives, but this is consistent with her approach where she has sought to undermine not just our democracy but also the Australian people in being part of this conversation. We want to make sure that Australians are part of this conversation, because it's not just a discussion about improving the environment, though it is. It's not just a discussion about the future of the Australian economy, though it is. We want to take rural and regional communities and those communities that may have disproportionate impacts on them along on the journey, because we want to improve their communities and seize the moment and the opportunity. The other thing we heard from the member for Warringah was a comparison with the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom they have thousands of pages of legislation in different areas of strategies. Well, the simple reality is, yes, we have a 169-page plan without a giant new bureaucracy established by this parliament, as was tabled by the Prime Minister in question time yesterday, but it builds across the pillars that the government has already built in areas such as our Modern Manufacturing Strategy and our Critical Mineral Strategy, where we will seize the moment and the opportunity to extract minerals to be part of the technologies of the future, particularly renewable technologies. It also integrates environmental standards that go into things like the Building Code. The member for Warringah then went on and said: why not legislate a target? Firstly, we took our target to the people at the last election, and it was endorsed by them. The Labor Party took a different target, and they were defeated. But, more critically, we actually did an international analysis of the number of countries that have legislated targets. Of the 193 countries or there abouts that have made international commitments, only seven have legislated their targets. The state governments of Western Australia and Queensland have not legislated targets. Mr TIM WILSON IMW But the member opposite, the member for McMahon, raises the United Kingdom, and I am quite happy to talk about that. One of the reasons why we didn't go down the path of legislating targets is that it empowers people outside this parliament to override it. We know from the member's legislation that she previously presented to this parliament that she wants to appoint bureaucrats who could veto this parliament on climate change policy, as despicable as that is. But you just need to look at how—and the member for McMahon raised what's happening in the United Kingdom. They legislated their target, and now activists are using that as a vehicle to use the courts to shut down democratic decision-making. We just need to look at it here: Campaigners have launched a legal challenge to try to prevent billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent on a huge road-building programme, which they say breaches the UK's legal commitments … I'm a democrat. I believe that parliamentary sovereignty matters. I think that the people who are elected to this parliament should decide the law. And it isn't just new road projects; they're trying to shut down the development of new airports. It doesn't matter what push the Labor Party and the independent member for Warringah have, I will stand by the Australian people. We've seen now the human consequences of the European approach. In the lead up to this winter, we had a backing by bureaucrats on a small number of technologies and the rising risk of higher energy prices, with many people increasingly unable to afford the capacity to heat their homes. That is a despicable approach in terms of public policy. We're going to take an approach that backs the Australian people, that backs households and, of course, that backs building the future of the Australian economy so that we can take the community with us. That's why yesterday we hit such a milestone: a coalition government hitting out a target for net zero by 2050 and then a comprehensive plan, a 130-page plan, about how we are going to get there. Let's look at that in comparison to the Australian Labor Party. We know that they don't have a 2030 target. They have a 2050 target, but literally the detail of that plan could fit on a fortune cookie. You compare that to the coalition: We take targets to an election. We get them endorsed by the Australian people. We then go on and develop a plan, and, of course, we then go on and implement said plan. The planet that doesn't care about good intentions alone; it cares about outcomes. Let's look at the record of outcomes. The average emissions reductions since 2005 for OECD countries is seven per cent. Australia has already reached 21 per cent emissions reductions since 2005. That's times three. If you look at comparable countries, the United States has only achieved about 10 per cent. Then you look at a country like China, which, of course, has seen emissions rise by nearly 70 per cent over the time frame. What we are showing is leadership. We are showing leadership as to how we are going to cut our emissions and provide the pathway for so many other countries to follow that leadership, in an Australian way that focuses on building the foundations of the Australian economy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The assistant minister will resume his seat. The member for Warringah, on a point of order? Ms Steggall 175696 On a point of order: this is a motion as to why we should debate this today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E There's no point of order. The assistant minister is to continue. Mr TIM WILSON IMW Thank you. I appreciate the member's irrelevant interjection. What we're talking about is the substantive issue of how we're delivering a lower carbon future for Australia and building the future of the Australian economy. One of the critical things about the member for Warringah's bill is that it doesn't rule some things out. This is important. By staying silent, there's a secret agenda. What we know from the Labor Party is that they have gone to elections previously and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government we lead.' Then they have gone on and implemented it. We know that the member for Warringah wants carbon taxes. This isn't a secret. If she doesn't, then she can simply rule it out in her bill and say that there shouldn't be carbon taxes. But we know, in practice, there will be, because what she wants to do is empower bureaucrats to make decisions at the expense of the sovereign people. Our interest is in what we need to do to save the planet. Our interest is in what we need to do to cut emissions and continue the trajectory in which we are delivering. But, more critically, we want to focus on how we build jobs for the future so that every Australian can realise their ambitions, save the planet and make a buck. (Time expired) 10:36 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The Labor Party is delighted to support the suspension of standing orders so this parliament can do its job. The assistant minister just asserted, in one of his more bizarre performances—and that's a low bar—that it is anti-democratic for a member of parliament to introduce a piece of legislation to be debated in the parliament and voted upon. I don't agree with every single thing in the honourable member for Warringah's bill. That's fine. That's what the parliament is for. If it came on for a vote, we'd have the chance to move amendments, to discuss the situation and to actually pass a law with the support of the parliament. But I make this prediction: the suspension of standing orders today will unfortunately fail because the government will use its numbers to crush debate in the House of Representatives. The government will use its numbers to stop this parliament doing its job, and the government will abide by a recommendation from that well-known modern liberal, the member for North Sydney, not to bring this bill on for a vote. The member for Wentworth will vote against bringing this on for a vote. The member for Higgins will vote against bringing this on for a vote. The member for Goldstein has already spoken against bringing this on for a vote. The member for Kooyong will vote against bringing this on for a vote. These modern Liberals, who are lions in their electorates and mice in Canberra, will stifle this vote. I predict this bill will not come on for a vote. I predict this bill will not have the chance to be debated in this parliament. The member for Goldstein had arguments against it—pretty weak ones—but he could have made those arguments in a substantive debate before the parliament and explained why this government thinks we shouldn't legislate for net zero and all the other things that are in the legislation. This bill should be debated, and this parliament should do its job. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time for this debate has expired. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the member for Warringah be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 55 AYES Alexander, J. G. Allen, K. J. Andrews, K. J. Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Connelly, V. G. Coulton, M. M. Drum, D. K. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Falinski, J. G. Fletcher, P. W. Frydenberg, J. A. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Hamilton, G. R. Hammond, C. M. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Hunt, G. A. Joyce, B. T. G. Kelly, C. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Martin, F. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, L. S. O'Dowd, K. D. Pasin, A. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharma, D. N. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wyatt, K. G. Zimmerman, T. M. 50 NOES Albanese, A. N. Bandt, A. P. Bird, S. L. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Dick, D. M. Elliot, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Freelander, M. R. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Haines, H. M. Hayes, C. P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. O'Connor, B. P. J. Owens, J. A. Payne, A. E. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Smith, D. P. B. Snowdon, W. E. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 19 BILLS Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021, Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 19

Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021

Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Second Reading 19 10:47 Ms 282981 Moncrieff BELL () (): In rising in continuation on the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021, I will continue telling the story of Indigenous elder Patricia O'Connor. Along with her sister Ysola, Patricia also negotiated for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service men and women to march under their own flags in the Brisbane Anzac Day parade. Mrs O'Connor was born to Aboriginal parents Stanley Yuke and Edith Graham. Stan was a former Aboriginal champion boxer who had graced the ring in Brisbane's Festival Hall in the mid-1920s. Edith was the youngest daughter of well-known Aboriginal matriarch Jenny Graham, who raised her children with husband Andrew Graham in Southport, in my electorate, from the 1900s onwards. Patricia said the Aboriginal community of the day was close-knit and supportive of each other. She grew up in contact with her extended family, who were the traditional people of Beaudesert, Southport and Stradbroke Island. 'I had a lovely childhood,' she said, 'The family was very close and we always felt very loved.' When Patricia was aged five, the family relocated to Southport, to live with Granny Graham and her many relatives on the banks of the Nerang River, by the Broadwater. 'It was actually like paradise,' Mrs O'Connor said, 'Our cousins lived close by and the mangroves and oceans were our playgrounds.' Patricia was born Beaudesert hospital, representing the first generation of her Aboriginal family line not to be born in the bush. The Australian Constitution was just 28 years old and it didn't recognise Aborigines. Aboriginal people were cut off from the rights enjoyed by Australian citizens, such as land ownership, the basic wage and access to public facilities such as swimming pools, theatres and hotels. Removal policies meant children could be taken from families without notice or explanation, resulting in the stolen generations. That is what these bills are about—making sure that those affected by separation from their families have access to redress for the pain and the suffering they endured. As a well-respected elder in her community, Mrs O'Connor appears to not dwell on the injustices of the past. Instead, she points to the work that needs to be done to create better opportunities for mobo jarjum—tomorrow's children. She said: I think people need to know their own history. They need to know the truth of what happened in their neighbourhood and around Australia. Then they need to get to work to make it a better place. Don't be afraid of hard work and know your own story. Wiser words were never spoken, and I agree wholeheartedly with Mrs O'Connor's sentiments. I acknowledge Judith Kerr from the Quest newspapers for this story. It seems, on the surface, an inspirational and a good story to share from Queensland, but Australians know that Aboriginal Australians have been marginalised in our country for generations, and it's simply not okay. A national apology has been made and now, as outlined by Patricia O'Connor, we continue our work to assist the Indigenous peoples of our great country to improve their lives. As a government we continue to work to close the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Indigenous Australians, and I congratulate the minister here in House on the work that he continues to do for all Indigenous Australians. He knows, more than most, the effects of the stolen generations, as members of his own family were just that—as outlined and respected by the member for Barton. On 5 August 2021 the Prime Minister announced the Australian government's commitment to a $378.6 million financial and wellbeing scheme for stolen generation survivors who were removed as children from their families in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory, prior to their respective self-government, or the Jervis Bay Territory—collectively known as 'the territories'. This package is known as the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme and will be administered by the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the NIAA. The scheme will operate from 1 March 2022 to 30 June 2026 and will be open for applications between 1 March 2022 and 28 February 2026. The redress scheme recognises the harm caused by forced removal from family for stolen generation survivors. It will assist with the healing of this trauma for stolen generation survivors who were forcibly removed in the territories. It will help survivors gain access to counselling and support services—so important—a direct face-to-face or written apology and a financial payment. Redress provided through the scheme will enable eligible applicants to access a one-off payment of $75,000 in recognition of the harm caused by that forced removal, and the one-off healing-assistance payment of $7,000 in recognition that the action to facilitate healing is specific to each and every individual. It will provide the opportunity for each survivor to confidentially tell their story, about the impact of their removal, to a senior official within government, have their story acknowledged and receive a face-to-face or written direct personal response. This is truth telling. They can tell their true stories of the appalling events that happened to them, and it's the beginning of their healing process. The Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme represents an important practical step forward to healing in this country and reflects our government's commitment to reconciliation. The redress scheme supports intergenerational healing and will positively impact the health and wellbeing of stolen generation survivors, their families and their communities. These bills will facilitate the operation of certain aspects of the redress scheme for stolen generation survivors who were removed as children from their families in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory or the Jervis Bay Territory. They will ensure that a participant in the scheme will not be adversely affected by receiving a redress payment. This is achieved by providing that receipt of a redress payment does not affect a participant's access to or eligibility for any future payments or services provided by the Commonwealth or require the payment of an amount to the Commonwealth. The Healing Foundation's work to address trauma passed from generation to generation will, indeed, continue to inform the government's redress scheme for stolen generation survivors. The bills will make some general rules on how redress payments are to be protected and will make minor changes to the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Social Security Act 1991, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that a participant in the scheme will not be adversely affected by receiving a redress payment. The Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 also facilitates crosschecking of identity information, provided by applicants, with information held by the Department of Social Services and Services Australia through change to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. It's important for anyone listening to outline their eligibility criteria, which I'll quickly do: you must be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person; under the age of 18 years at the time you were removed from your family by government bodies, including the police, churches, missions and/or welfare bodies; in circumstances where your Indigeneity was a factor in your removal; and removed while living in the Northern Territory, ACT and Jervis Bay Territory, as outlined previously. Further details will be announced closer to the applications opening next year. I encourage those who qualify for this redress scheme to apply for it, because it will be the beginning of your healing journey and it will advance our nation and bring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations people and the rest of Australia closer together. 10:55 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank all those members who've contributed to the debate. It's a pleasure to stand here today to support the bill that will facilitate the operation of certain aspects of this redress scheme. The objective of the bill is to ensure that receipt of a redress payment does not affect a person's access to or eligibility for any pensions, payments, benefits or services, however described, provided by the Commonwealth or require the repayment of an amount to the Commonwealth, and to ensure that the redress payment is absolutely inalienable. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 21 10:56 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 21

Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Second Reading 21 Third Reading 21 10:58 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BILLS 22 BILLS Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 22

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Second Reading 22 10:58 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The Labor Party strongly supports this bill, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. We strongly support it because we've called for it. We've pointed out over many months that this bill was urgent, and this bill is way overdue. And, as is so often the case with the Morrison government, particularly when it comes to renewable energy, the government comes very, very late to the party, but we welcome them to the party as late as they are. Offshore wind has huge potential for Australia. Just as we have huge potential in solar, being a country which has the best solar potential in the world, we have self-evidently a very long coastline. Every school student knows we are an island nation. It goes without much thought to reach the conclusion that we have very big offshore wind potential. But we have been one of the very few countries in the world where it's unlawful for a proponent of offshore wind to pursue that and install offshore wind, which is a complete failure of logic and must be remedied urgently, as the Labor Party has been saying for many, many months. We have some of the best wind resources in the world, particularly off our southern coast, and this is a resource which must be harnessed for the good of the country. We have more offshore wind resource than we could use ourselves and, indeed, it provides export opportunities for Australia. We're a country which has exported energy for many years, and we will be a country which exports energy for many years to come—but of course that energy mix will change. But that will be the case only if we embrace the proper policy framework to manage that change and continue to be a country which exports, creating jobs. Other countries are getting on with it. A prime minister recently said that in 10 years time offshore wind will be powering every home in the country. That was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. In his speech to the Conservative Party conference at this time last year, he outlined a plan—a good plan—for offshore wind for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom already has the largest offshore wind generation capacity, and in October 2020 the United Kingdom government announced a target of 40 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030—a significant increase. Energy providers are already getting on with it. There are something like 15 proposals all around the country at varying degrees of readiness—all are well developed, but all are waiting for this important piece of legislation. The one that is most advanced is Star of the South in Gippsland. I have visited Morwell, I've looked at the plans and I've spoken to the proponents, and I use Star of the South as an example because it tells a very good story about the capacity of offshore wind. If the proposal for Star of the South were operating today, it would provide 20 per cent of Victoria's energy needs as we speak: one offshore wind installation would provide 20 per cent of Victoria's energy needs. Because it's windier off the coast and because the turbines are tall, offshore wind has a capacity to provide a lot of energy. One turn of one offshore wind turbine provides as much energy as an average rooftop solar installation does all day: one turn of one turbine, and these turbines turn 15 times a minute. When you multiply the number of turbines in each installation it gives you an idea of the scale. But the other story of offshore wind is the jobs created. It's labour-intensive. Because the turbines move quickly they require a lot of maintenance, and because the turbines are offshore the maintenance workers have to be taken to the turbines. That creates maritime jobs and ports jobs, and I say that this is a good thing. I say it's good that a lot of jobs are created. And that there's a third reason to support offshore wind: it's not just that jobs are created, it's that jobs are created in areas which are going through economic change. The jobs are created in the same areas which have powered Australia for so long. That's because offshore wind farms tend to want to feed into our grid—in the case of most of Australia, that's the National Energy Market grid—where the grid is strongest, where the connectors are. And that's where energy has long been generated, in areas like Gippsland and Latrobe; Newcastle and the Hunter Valley; and the Illawarra, Gladstone and Central Queensland. These are the areas, in many cases, where offshore wind proposals exist. So there will be jobs created in areas where we need to diversify the economy. On this side of the House, we want to see the world's climate emergency being the jobs opportunity for regional Australia. It can be and it will be with the right policy settings. These are the areas which have powered Australia for so long and which have access to the grid and to the ports for export. And, importantly, they have access to a wonderful skills base—the skills base of the workers who have generated power for so long is readily transferable to more renewable energy, including offshore wind. For example, I've spoken already about the United Kingdom's offshore wind industry. That's a good example. In terms of jobs created, 26,000 people already work in the offshore wind industry in the United Kingdom, with another 70,000 people forecast to be working there by 2026, which is not that far away. As I said, there are many varying proposals around the country. Oceanex, with whom I've met, is looking at spending $31 billion to build 7.5 gigawatts worth of offshore wind generation and significantly upgrade ports. Green Energy Partners have projects that they are proposing off the Illawarra and off Newcastle. They want to use Port Kembla as a construction hub, creating jobs in the Illawarra, where they are so desperately needed. So this is an industry which I think has huge potential for Australia and must be embraced, and we must move fast. This legislation is important, but it is not the be-all and end-all. It provides significant power to the minister to declare areas, for example. I have no problem with that, but it's a power which he should exercise appropriately, prudently and carefully but also expeditiously to ensure that this industry, which has waited so long for government action, can now get on with it. That is not to say that this bill is perfect. As strongly as we support it, there are improvements we would have liked to see made. The Senate committee, which is a bipartisan committee, agrees, and it has made recommendations to the government. I'm surprised and disappointed—well, I'm disappointed but, with this minister, perhaps not so surprised—that the government has ignored the bipartisan recommendations to improve the bill. Government senators who led the committee made some suggestions, and they're suggestions that I take on board as the shadow minister. These suggestions include amending the objects clause to better incorporate energy transmission and exports. We can be, as I've said before, an energy-exporting nation. There's infrastructure required to do so, whether it be submarine cables or hydrogen facilities to export our renewable energy, but it can and should be done, and the objects of the bill should reflect that. There should be an amendment on consultation requirements for declared areas. We have a long coastline. Not every part of our coastline is suitable for offshore wind—hence the opportunity for the minister to declare areas. There will be some instances where that is controversial. Communities should have ownership and a voice in doing so, and there should be requirements on the minister for consultation in relation to declaration. The government should consider amendments to the changes-in-control provisions as well. There has been a minor technical amendment suggested to allow for a different change-in-control thresholds for individual licences to be considered transparently during the licence application process while still maintaining the government's intended outcomes, which seems a sensible suggestion to me. But the government have indicated they will not be taking on the advice of their own members, as well as the opposition. There are also concerns held on this side of the House about the occupational health and safety elements of this bill. The Senate inquiry heard two additional concerns that are not reflected in the final report but are reflected in concerns held by the opposition. In particular, the bill's work health and safety framework is confusing and disappointing. The committee heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the national harmonised WHS law in the bill. The committee heard that the government has amended those laws into an unrecognisable state. I am perplexed by that. I do not understand why the government would do that. Without harmonisation of these WHS frameworks, we may end up with a situation where a worker would be subject to one regime onshore, a second regime while transiting to the offshore wind establishment and a third regime while actually working on the offshore wind establishment. This poses considerable risk of confusion for both workers and employers. It's a complicated situation for employers, who in the vast majority of circumstances want to comply with the law. I do not understand why the government wants to create so much red tape and make the law so complicated. To be fair, there is disagreement on these points, including between the department, the regulator and stakeholders representing both employers and workers, but that again underlines the importance of getting it right and getting it clearer. Given this significant difference of opinion, I urge the government to urgently undertake further consultation on both the content of the WHS provisions and their coverage. If the government chooses not to do that then, if there is a change of government at the next election, we will undertake that consultation. We believe that we should improve and harmonise the WHS regulatory frameworks covering workers in offshore clean energy. That's reflected in the Labor Party's national platform already, and it will be reflected in our approach in office. It is good for workers and good for employers if we fix this and get it right. We regard it as being crucial. There is time, with the best will in the world, if this legislation passes both houses expeditiously. There's still some way to go for the government's regulatory regime, and then, of course, proponents have a good deal of work ahead of them, so it is not the case that offshore wind will be being built in coming weeks or months. So the government has time to do this. Indeed, an incoming Labor government would have time to do this, should we win the next election. Our second concern is that the bill does not require local benefits to be included in the merit criteria for licences. I think many, many communities would welcome offshore wind because of the jobs created and the economic activity created for young people and for workers who might have been displaced in other energy generation, but I accept that there will be controversy. I am aware of some offshore wind proposals which are controversial, particularly in Tasmania. Not every proposal will meet with community support, but every proposal needs community ownership and support to be truly successful, and partly that will depend on the consultation process undertaken by the proponents. Again, I do not mind saying in the House that the Star of the South proposal has undertaken excellent community consultation and, as I understand it, has strong support in the Gippsland community. But not every proponent will always be as assiduous in engaging in community consultation, so it should be the case that local benefits should be required in the merit criteria for licences. When the minister of the day is considering whether to grant an offshore electricity licence, he or she should be required to consider the benefits for local workers, for businesses, for communities and, importantly, for traditional owners and First Nations people. It is important that this is reflected either in the legislation, ideally, or in the detailed regulations. I urge the government to consider amending the legislation to make this clear. This is an issue not just for offshore wind but for renewable energy installations more broadly and for transmission lines particularly. I've met at the request of the member for Ballarat with people concerned about the impacts of transmission lines through that community. They have excellent ideas about how community support and ownership can be improved. It will be a massive undertaking across the country to massively upgrade renewable energy generation and upgrade the transmission grid to get renewable energy to where it will be consumed. It is going to require a lot of community support, and we make it harder for ourselves as a country if we don't have the proper mechanisms in place to get that community support going for the big expansions of renewable energy and for the transmission lines to get the energy to where it is needed. To summarise, we do very much welcome the bills. We called for them. I've written articles explaining why offshore wind has such potential for Australia. The government promised them many, many months ago and they have been delayed, but we do very much welcome the fact that they are being debated in the House today and we would welcome their expeditious passage through the other place as well. But we do call for improvements, and if this government does not improve the bill, an incoming Labor government, should we be elected, would certainly seek to improve the legislation. That sentiment is reflected in the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name and which I now formally 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 urges the Government to improve the bill as recommended by Government Senators on the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, and to ensure safety for workers and benefits for local communities". I commend the bill to the House and I commend the second reading amendment to the House as well. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 Is the amendment seconded? Dr BU8 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 11:14 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I'm thrilled and delighted to speak in support of the legislation before the House today, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the associated bills. This legislation has the exciting capacity to contribute so much to our transition to a net zero economy. This legislation is very timely, because it comes in a week that has been so significant for Australia's efforts to reduce its climate change emissions. I see these bills as part of the government's plans to make sure that we meet that target we've recently formally adopted, making sure that Australia achieves net zero emissions by 2050. It is timely, because it is legislation like this, and all that will flow from it, that is going to allow that technological revolution, which is already having such a significant impact, to continue. The bills focus on a couple of areas but chief amongst them is the creation of opportunities for offshore renewable wind energy. It's interesting to think about the technological transformation that has occurred during the course of our history. Wind energy is in fact one of the oldest technologies, when you think about how many civilisations, how many nations, how many communities, were powered in a maritime context by wind over so many thousands of years. Yet now we are seeing that technology that was supplanted by fossil fuels during the 19th and 20th centuries reach a new forte in a different context, and these bills are about allowing that to occur. It is that type of technological transformation that we are seeing in so many areas of our economy and society that is going to be the vanguard of ensuring that not just Australia but the world achieves its goals to contain emissions and reach net zero. That's why this legislation in particular is so important. It is legislation that is delivering real, practical and meaningful opportunities for us to reach our targets. It's exactly the type of legislation that should have priority in the parliament today. It reflects the fact that the transformation of our electricity sector, which this will support, is well underway. The bills will allow the development of offshore renewable electricity sectors in Commonwealth waters. We have as a nation, as an island continent, some of the largest marine territories in the world. Offshore renewable energy infrastructure has the potential to help meet our environmental objectives not only of reducing emissions but also of creating such significant investment and job opportunities across our country. It will add to our technological prowess and skills. However, it's extraordinary to believe that in fact things like offshore wind farms are effectively not permitted under current Australian law. Without the regulatory framework proposed in this bill, there is no clear pathway for investors to pursue large-scale offshore renewable energy projects. This legislation will provide industry and the community with the certainty it needs to invest in offshore electricity infrastructure projects. The bills establish a regulatory framework to enable construction, installation, commissioning, maintenance and decommissioning, and the operation of those offshore electricity assets. It is a comprehensive regime that is outlined in the bills, and it provides that framework that I know that industry has been so keen to see established. It will permit the minister to declare specified areas suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure activities and establish an appropriate licensing regime. It will permit, for the first time, offshore wind farms and also, importantly, provide a framework for projects like Marinus Link and Sun Cable, which I will talk a little bit about further. The government estimates that, just with the three most advanced projects—those two I've mentioned, Marinus Link and Sun Cable, and the Star of the South wind farm proposal—it could deliver investment worth $10 billion and create over 10,000 jobs during their construction. And they will all provide ongoing jobs to support their operations. The legislation will contribute to the transformation underway in electricity and support the development of clean energy just when we need it most. It's worth reflecting on the fact that almost a quarter of electricity generated in the NEM is coming from renewable sources, and that solar and wind is now accounting for 99 per cent of new electricity generation capacity in Australia. Of course we know from the projections that were confirmed in the plans released yesterday by the Prime Minister that our renewable energy capacity is expected to exceed 50 per cent by 2030, and it will go on and on, and by 2050 it will be a major contributor in us reaching our net zero target. Our task in that context is to assure that renewable energy can be accommodated within our transmission systems, within our electricity and energy systems, at higher and higher levels, and this bill will contribute to that goal. The bill builds on what I do think is the government's strong record of supporting renewable energy projects and critical grid infrastructure. I see it in the context of the work that we're doing to support that massive expansion of the Snowy Hydro scheme, which is going to be the largest energy storage project in the Southern Hemisphere, and in the work that we're doing to support the deployment of new renewable capacity, particularly solar, which is now happening faster than almost any other economy in the world. We, in fact, now have the most solar per person of any country in the world and more solar and wind than any country outside of the European Union. Through agencies like ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, we have invested something like $11.2 billion into over 800 clean energy projects, with a total value that now exceeds $39 billion when you include the leverage that they've given to spark private sector investment. We've established a $250 million program to support the construction of critical new transmission lines, including projects like EnergyConnect, VNI West and of course Marinus Link, about which I will talk bit more. I am particularly excited about the potential of offshore wind farms. It is an area where we are seeing technological advancement. Like so many areas of the clean energy transformation, we are seeing costs come down. We're seeing turbines get better. We're seeing technology improve, which will particularly benefit Australia in the deployment of wind farms in deeper waters. This is why organisations like the International Energy Agency say offshore wind is going to be one of the big three in the future energy development. It, in fact, predicts that wind will provide a third of global electricity demand by 2050, by which we're aiming to reach our net zero target. Offshore wind can operate at a capacity which is equivalent to coal and gas in some regions and double the capacity of traditional solar panels. Offshore wind has larger capacity because it deploys bigger turbines than their terrestrial cousins and therefore is a beneficiary of the more constant and reliable wind found in the maritime environment. When there has been some controversy about the placement of some wind farms on land because of their location, it obviously has the benefit of having less visual impact than traditional wind sources. There is also the potential to locate offshore wind farms not only offshore but also close to existing industry ports and transmission services. Globally, by 2030, wind farms could be generating 200 gigawatts of power. To date, the big players in the offshore wind sector have been the United Kingdom, most famously perhaps through its work in the North Sea—I was going to say North Shore, but we're not quite there yet!—China and Germany, which account for 70 per cent of offshore wind farm generation. But we're seeing a rapid scaling up of offshore wind generation in other parts of the world, Across Europe, Netherlands comes forth, for example. We're seeing expansion in the UK with Prime Minister Boris Johnson flagging his intentions for an even greater role for offshore wind farms, and we're also seeing an expansion in our own region, in the Asia-Pacific. In the United States, a nation which perhaps surprisingly has done relatively poorly in relation to offshore wind generation, the Biden administration has announced its support for a rapid expansion of the sector. I think I read that at the moment the United States only generates something like 42 megawatts of electricity from offshore wind. The president's goal is to see that expand to 30 gigawatts over the course of the next decade. Our goal as a nation should be to join them, and Australian's waters, our maritime territories, are well suited to this task. As Geoscience Australia has noted, we have some of the best wind resources in the world, and it stands to reason that that is the case. Many of these opportunities have been outlined in an excellent report I recently read by the Blue Economy CRC, which was released in July this year. It found that Australia has abundant offshore wind resources in a range of locations, with, perhaps not surprisingly, the strongest resources occurring in southern latitudes. These include areas like the south of Tasmania, in Bass Strait, off the south west and south-east coasts of the continent and off other parts of Western Australia, Queensland and my own state of New South Wales. In fact, Australian offshore wind resources are comparable, if not greater than, those areas that have been the centre of a lot of activity in the North Sea off Britain and Europe. Due to the depth of our waters and the nature of the continental shelf, one of the challenges that Australia has experienced is the capacity to deploy offshore wind by using the traditional technology of being able to effectively anchor to the seabed. That becomes more challenging the deeper your oceans and your waters are, but this is a game where technology is providing the solutions that we will need. We are now at the point where we are seeing the commercial development and deployment of floating offshore wind technologies which overcome those barriers of ocean depths. It is a fact that so far most offshore wind farms have been fixed technology with foundations on the seabed. However, floating wind technology does provide extraordinary potential for our own nation. There are many projects that are under development that will support offshore wind. In fact, I think there are something like 10 that are under development today. I want to highlight one of these—the Star of the South project off Gippsland, because it is probably the most advanced. It highlights what potential we have. If developed to its full potential, the Star of the South will generate up to 2.2 gigawatts of new capacity, which would power the equivalent of 1.2 million homes across Victoria. Some have said that it will provide as much as 20 per cent of Victoria's current energy needs. The offshore wind farm Star of the South is proposed to be located between seven and 25 kilometres off the south coast of Gippsland, near towns such as Port Albert, Mclaughlins Beach and Woodside Beach. The project includes a transmission network of cables and substations to connect the offshore wind farm to the Latrobe Valley. The project will use underground cables for most of the transmission line, unless it's not technically feasible or where overhead lines would have lower impacts. Three potential route options have been investigated with one taken through to detailed planning. We are likely to see, with this legislation, and with all of the approvals that will follow, the investment start delivering power by the end of this decade. Projects like Star of the South do more than just provide cheaper and cleaner energy; there are huge economic benefits that will come from this project. It would create 2,000 direct jobs in Victoria over its lifetime, including 760 Gippsland jobs during construction and 200 on an ongoing basis. It would mean an investment over its lifetime of something like $8.7 billion in the Victorian economy. As a New South Welshman, I'm delighted to see Victoria benefit in that way! But this is just a sample of what the future can hold for us. I also want to briefly mention that this bill is not just about offshore wind potential; it envisages technologies that are still a twinkle in a scientist's eye. It will also better support the deployment of undersea cables to allow, within Australia, a better connection of renewable energy resources—I'm thinking particularly about the Battery of the Nation project in Tasmania, which has such extraordinary potential. This bill will allow Mariner's Link to occur in a more orderly fashion. There is also our export potential as a nation. What has excited me are those proposals for cable connecting Singapore to northern Australia and our capacity, through solar power, to generate a new energy export to Singapore. Again, this legislation will support Sun Cable in proceeding as that cable winds its way across the sea to link, in a new way, Australia with one of its closest friends, the Singapore nation. I strongly support this legislation. It is about providing the future for our energy sources, and it is going to help us meet our goal of net zero emissions by 2050. I commend the legislation to the House. 11:29 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I rise in support of these bills and the amendment moved by my colleague the member for McMahon. The bills establish a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area beyond three nautical miles. This framework will finally allow the construction, installation, operation and maintenance of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure. These bills allow the energy minister to declare suitable areas for offshore electricity infrastructure and they establish a licensing system for offshore electricity activities and put in place various regulatory measures around the management and compliance of these activities. We will be supporting these bills because, despite the Deputy Prime Minister saying we shouldn't be making laws about climate change and despite the Prime Minister saying laws aren't what's needed to drive clean energy and despite the minister for energy and emissions reduction saying—I'm not quite sure what he says—here we have the perfect example of why we need laws to encourage investment and to allow investment that will drive clean energy. That side of the House doesn't seem to grasp this. Either they want clean energy or they don't. Either they want laws to drive a clean-energy future or they don't. I hate to tell them, but right now, by debating these bills, we are making laws that will enable a clean future. That's what governments do. And isn't it about time these bills were before the House? We've been calling for these bills for years. It seems that now the COP is just around the corner the Morrison government has realised their homework is due and they're rushing to get it in on time. These regulations are vital to unlocking Australia's potential as a renewables superpower. Offshore wind will play an important role in Australia meeting its climate obligations and getting to net zero by 2050. Australia is uniquely placed in this regard. Our potential for offshore wind is huge. We have the environmental advantage, the skilled workforce and resources, and business and industry keen to take advantage of it right now. In fact, they've been calling for these regulations for some time. There are projects lined up that have been sitting on desks, collecting dust, for years, and these aren't small projects. The Star of the South, for example, a project proposed off the coast of Victoria, is huge. It will create around 2,000 direct jobs for workers from along the Victorian eastern coastline—workers from communities that have been involved in traditional energy industries, whose economies are changing with the closure of coal-fired power, workers whose skills are able to be deployed into the offshore electricity industry. They should take up the opportunity, because they will enter secure well-paying jobs in an industry providing massive amounts of clean energy to the state of Victoria. The clean energy output figures projected for these sites are enormous. The Star of the South is predicted to be able to produce up to 20 per cent of the energy needed to power Victoria. When the minister stands up and says, 'We need more power, we need cheaper power and we need reliable power,' this is it. The Star of the South project will invest around $8.7 billion into Victoria over its lifetime, including an estimated $6.4 billion directly into the Gippsland economy. The good people of the Latrobe Valley have been screaming for this kind of economic diversification, and those on that side of the chamber might be surprised to know the Latrobe Valley is regional. It is a rural community and they love this project, and it's about renewables. Go figure. These sorts of renewable projects, we know, will work and they need to be unlocked now. For years the minister has sat on his hands, refusing to bring this legislation forward. Maybe he didn't know that laws work and are needed to make these things happen. Well may we say, 'Well done, Angus.' The fact is, I wrote to the minister in October 2019 requesting that he move, get this legislation onboard, get these laws going. Did we get a response? Did I get a response? Nope. Not a word. But here we are, with a net zero credibility government, a net zero credibility minister, rushing around like chooks without heads trying to do something credible. So well done, Minister. On listening at least to the calls of industry and those of us on this side of the House, finally the legislation is coming forward. He certainly hasn't heard the cries of workers in the Latrobe Valley. He certainly hasn't heeded the calls of small businesses in Gippsland, all desperate for this massive project to get going years ago. But at least, and at last, industry can get on with the job of delivering clean energy for Australia, because the Star of the South will power around 1.2 million homes. It will be cleaner, it will be cheaper. Who'd have thunk it? It's all because we're here today making laws. I will note that the Senate inquiry into these bills did raise a number of concerns regarding its drafting. Really, can those opposite get anything right? The first was around inadequate requirements for consultation with the minister for the environment, their own minister, and consultation with state and territory governments, and with energy authorities. We know the government has a shoddy track record when it comes to environmental consultation, particularly in the area of energy—and particularly when the energy is offshore—so it's important that proper consultation and approval frameworks are built into these regulations. The second area is in relation to transmission and export of energy generated offshore. We know that with the natural advantages Australia has for offshore wind, and with industry and a workforce ready to go, opportunities will arise for Australia to export the energy we're producing offshore. The legislation, as it is proposed, inadequately addresses exports—and it's critical that we get this right if we're going to take true advantage of these opportunities. The final issue I'd like to draw attention to is regarding workplace health and safety provisions in this legislation. There's nothing more important than making workplace safety a top priority. We know that this will be dangerous work—some aspects of it—and that this work requires a highly skilled workforce which understands the risks and which has conditions and protections that reduce the risks and keep them safe. I know that the unions for these workforces—predominantly the Maritime Union of Australia, the Electrical Trades Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union—are doing all they can in preparation for these offshore wind projects. That's to make sure that standards are up to scratch and that they're ready to protect their members. But it's really important that this House does its part too, by legislating proper workplace health and safety standards and making sure they're consistent with existing standards in the industry. I understand that current consultations on the standards included in this bill have not reached their conclusion and that agreement hasn't yet been found. In fact, it's the understanding of the unions that the provisions currently in the bill will lead to differences in the provisions for onshore and offshore workplaces. As my colleague the member for McMahon rightly pointed out, a worker could be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, another while in a transit vessel and another again when they reach the offshore renewable platform. As a former union official, I know that this will undoubtedly lead to confusion and mistakes—and all it takes is one mistake for things to go horribly wrong, particularly in high-risk industries. So we call on the government to continue their consultations in this area and to listen to the concerns of workers and their unions to get this right. If this isn't resolved properly before an election, an Albanese Labor government will resolve this upon taking office—because an Albanese Labor government won't risk the lives of workers. The job opportunities that flow from these projects will make a big difference for workers in traditional energy industries and for their communities because these jobs are overwhelmingly union jobs. They have decent wages and decent conditions, and they're secure jobs. They're jobs in an industry which is booming and has a bright future—one which, if we get this right; if we get the legislation right in this place, and fast—can turn into a lucrative export industry for decades to come. Australia can and should be a renewables superpower. There's no reason, other than the government's consistent and persistent reluctance to act, that Australia should not be at the forefront of renewable energy technologies, harnessing the natural advantages and exporting clean, cheap energy to the world. That, as my colleague the member for McMahon put so well, is the opportunity for Australia in the world's climate emergency. We've seen some crazy rhetoric from the government, particularly over the last fortnight, when it comes to climate change. We heard the Minister for Resources and Water claim that solar panels don't work in the dark. We've heard the Nats say that they are moving forward on moving forward to somewhere, with one of their own actively campaigning against that moving forward—presumably to move backwards to somewhere else. Oh, and we have the Prime Minister's plan—a plan, a plan!—of graphs, gloss and glitzy slogans but very little substance at all. And yesterday on Sky News I was personally mentioned by the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction as wanting to rip gas barbecues out of people's homes. Really; where does this absurdity end! In fact, Deputy Speaker, you might be pleased to know that I'll be having a barbeque this Friday with my family for my birthday. I'll be 58 on Friday. I'll be sure to send the minister a snap, because there will be plenty of burnt sausages in a low-emissions technology—I promise him! Australia should be at the forefront of clean energy technologies. We in the Labor Party want Australia to lead the world in the expertise, the technology and the experts for clean energy. In doing so, we will see jobs—jobs that we know come with climate action. There is no good reason why we haven't already seen these jobs. As I have said throughout this speech, we are uniquely placed to become a superpower. We know—it has been playing out front and centre over the last fortnight—that the government has climate deniers right throughout their ranks and climate deniers now in the cabinet room. We know that, contrary to the claims of the Prime Minister in this place, that this is a government bitterly divided when it comes to climate action, and that the division and the infighting we have seen play out over the last fortnight has culminated in an empty plan. It's a plan in name only, with little policy, little ambition and no real action—and no wonder; after all, this is a government frozen by their division. We saw the trade-off that the Prime Minister had to make in order to get a deal—if you can call it that—with The Nationals on net zero: the Minister for Resources and Water is back in cabinet. That shows so plainly what we all know to be true: they don't really care about regional Australia or about jobs for anyone else; they care about a pay rise for themselves—and, all the while, they sell regional Australia and the rest of us down the river. We've heard the media constantly calling for the cost of the government's plan. Well, I've got an exclusive on that. I can tell you that the cost of their plan—their hollow, policy-free plan—is jobs. Jobs will be lost. That is the cost—jobs in rural and regional Australia, in mining communities and in our export industries. But they don't care; they've got a minister in the cabinet room with a pay rise—well done! They played out their pantomime of consultation and the Deputy Prime Minster has been able to trot out to the media all week to pretend that he's acting in his constituency's best interests. It's not a coincidence that it has taken until days before the Prime Minister flies out to COP that we've seen anything resembling climate action from the government. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to this position, for things that we've been calling action on for many years now. It's not just us on this side of the House and it's not just the many climate activists who have been calling for action—and I want to give a big shout-out to all of the wonderful activists, particularly in my seat of Cooper, who have never given up on good policy on climate change; our closest trading partners and our captains of industry and businesses, small and medium, have also been screaming for this. It is embarrassing to see a government scramble now to dress up glossy brochures with meaningless graphs and slogans. But, unlike this government, Labor has a plan. We have a plan to get to net zero, to make Australia a renewables superpower. We have a plan to invest $20 billion to rewire the grid, enabling a massive uptake of renewable energy and creating thousands of jobs. We'll make electric vehicles cheaper, cutting taxes, and incentivising the uptake of EVs across the country. We'll support 10,000 new apprenticeships in the energy trades of the future, skilling up Australian workers to work in renewable jobs. We will have 400 community batteries constructed that will power 100,000 households with cheaper renewable energy. And we'll make sure regions are at the centre of Australia's shift to becoming a renewable superpower. We will invest $15 billion in a national reconstruction fund, creating jobs, jobs, jobs, and we'll cut emissions in the process. (Time expired) 11:44 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and related bills. If one thing was made clear yesterday by our announcement, it's that the Morrison government fully supports renewable energy production as well as regional jobs and jobs for Australians. The bills before us today allow for those things to flourish, by establishing a regulatory framework on offshore electricity infrastructure. Our great country has numerous important renewable energy infrastructure projects on the horizon, and, for their success to be guaranteed, this framework must be employed. Projects including the Marinus Link, Star of the South and Sun Cable will be enabled by this legislation, ensuring all Australians have access to affordable and reliable power sources. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 is crucial to ensuring Australians have a strong regulatory framework, around which a successful renewable energy sector can continue to be developed. Importantly, this bill will protect existing maritime stakeholders, by ensuring that areas will be made unavailable for infrastructure projects if their impacts cannot be appropriately controlled. This bill guarantees the protection of our environment, by placing an onus on developers to be conscious of their wider impact as they plan and proceed with their works. Moreover, this bill requires developers to provide financial security covering the decommissioning of their projects prior to any construction occurring. This ensures that taxpayers' funds won't be wasted by the government on decommissioning these infrastructure projects. This legislation stands to reaffirm the Morrison government's vision for a renewable future, by accelerating the development of crucial infrastructure at the same time as protecting existing maritime entities. This bill not only prohibits unauthorised offshore electricity infrastructure in Commonwealth waters; it ensures that existing maritime businesses, including navigation and fishing, are protected from interference by developmental impacts. The offshore infrastructure regulator will be authorised to take action against such businesses whose developmental actions adversely affect other businesses. This is a key commitment, as it acknowledges and holds to account large businesses by carefully regulating the way in which they proceed with infrastructure development. Moreover, this bill stands to empower the minister to declare areas as suitable for electricity infrastructure as well as grant licenses to businesses to proceed with development. This ensures a strong system of regulation that protects existing industry while encouraging renewable energy production offshore. This speaks to a number of projects that are in development and on the horizon. I'd like to talk about three of those now. Firstly, I'd like to talk about the Marinus Link. Returning to this bill's framework, it comprehensively covers all aspects of energy generation and transmission, supporting our commitment to affordable and reliable power. The Marinus Link will be regulated under this legislation. It connects Tasmania and Victoria with a 1,500-megawatt capacity undersea electrical and telecommunications pathway. This project will link the two states as well as strengthen Australia's electricity grid. Many don't know that Tasmania's high level of hydropower makes it already a net energy producer. By linking with Victoria, this will enable Tasmania to become the battery of the nation. In addition to this, excess renewable energy produced in Victoria will be able to be transferred to pumped hydroelectric storage facilities in Tasmania for future use, increasing the efficiency of Australia's energy sector. The national significance of the Marinus Link cannot be understated. It crucially supports the energy market as it transitions to being more renewable. That's not to mention the estimated $1.5 billion of revenue added to the Victorian economy and the 1,400 jobs created. With the strong regulatory framework this bill provides, the Marinus Link will be accelerated to support Australian industry and, in particular, Tasmania's ability to become the battery of the nation. The second project that will be supported by this legislation is the Sun Cable project, particularly the Australia-Asia Powerlink. Under this proposal, the world's largest solar farm and battery storage facility will be installed in the Northern Territory, with energy transmitted to Singapore via a high-voltage direct current transmission network. These are amazing projects. This is the future for Australia. This project is an important one for the green energy evolution, and it will work towards helping to decarbonise the energy sector. Not only considering the environmental benefits, the Australia-Asia PowerLink will create thousands of operation and construction jobs, especially stimulating local regional communities and suppliers with the $23 billion project. Again, the legislation before us today enables projects like this, empowering industry and ensuring a commitment to a renewable energy-led future. The third project is the Star of the South off the coast of Victoria, which will be enabled by this legislation. Currently Victoria generates enough electricity through wind energy to meet roughly nine per cent of the nation's total electricity demand. The Star of the South project, yet again enabled by the bill before us today, will see this figure rise to 20 per cent. This endeavour can power 1.2 million households across Victoria by connecting into the grid through the National Energy Market, strategically making use of existing infrastructure to promote efficiency and ensuring energy prices are kept low for all Australians. The star of the sea will invest and unlock $8.7 billion of funding into the region and $1.4 billion into the Latrobe Valley in particular. These projects are not only important as standalone projects but need to be considered as part of Australia's national effort towards moving toa renewable future, and that is what I would like to talk about today. As I said in my first speech, climate change is real and affects us all. I stressed at that time both the environmental and economic imperative to act then, and I stress it again today. It's not just an environmental imperative to act, it's an economic imperative. In fact, it's not just an economic imperative, we now know it's an economic inevitability. And yesterday was a momentous point in our country's history. Yesterday, Australia committed to net zero emissions by 2050. This target is important, because it puts out there where we are heading, and we have said very clearly what our principles are for the plan that underpin it. We don't believe in a target without a plan; we believe in a plan that supports a target. And there has been months and months and years and years of work to this point to be able to say what those factors are that will contribute to our future. As a medical researcher, I understand the principles of innovation. I understand that to unleash innovation you need to develop commercial, scalable solutions, and that's why the Morrison government is taking a partnership approach with business. It's not a top-down bureaucratic approach. Our approach has the market principles at heart. It's about providing choice—choice for consumers, partnerships with businesses, building jobs for the future, allowing the market to take us there but by investing in the market in order to unleash our technological capabilities. This is not a bureaucratic approach which suffocates innovation. We will see a range of new and innovative technologies reach cost competitiveness and help drive down costs across industries while building strong Australian businesses. That is the Liberal way. That is the way that has been effective and efficient over and over again. Our scientists and our engineers will be front and centre of this new green tech evolution. There's a lot of talk about what this plan will be, and obviously the plan has only been released in the last day so there's a lot more talk to come, but, more importantly, there's a lot more delivery to come and we need to look at the details of that delivery as we move forward. We know that that is coming, but, before we get to that point, I want to talk about the generalities, because the government has put very clearly on its road map what it intends to do. Firstly, continuing our strong record of emissions reduction with our emissions being 20 per cent lower than on 2005 levels. Secondly, our Technology Investment Roadmap will use technology targets to reduce emissions by a further 40 per cent. We also understand that there are global technology trends with shifts in our demand for exports and developments in global technology, and this will reduce emissions by a further 15 per cent. As an example, lithium, nickel and copper are likely to be the critical minerals of the future. We know that. For instance, I understand that at the moment our lithium exports are at around 90,000 tonnes a year—90,000 tonnes in 2021. Each electric vehicle needs about nine kilograms of lithium. It also needs about 40 kilograms of nickel. So that's a lot of kilograms of critical minerals that the world will need as we increase our electric vehicle capacity, and we know that that is coming at speed. We have 90,000 tonnes being shipped out this year to our export markets, at $14,000 a tonne—I think that's about right. I spoke to someone who works in the lithium sector, and he said that they're anticipating that the lithium export market will grow from 90,000 tonnes a year to two million tonnes by 2030. You can see right there that that is one of the future exports that we will see our country develop and grow. I encourage that we look to doing better with refining our critical minerals and making sure we do more value-add so that we can extract the highest amount of value before we export them overseas. All of these new global technology trends, which include use of electric vehicles and hydrogen trucks, need critical minerals, and our government has had that very firmly in our focus. We also believe that high-integrity offsets will be important for our future. These involve restoring carbon in soils and vegetation and working with our Indo-Pacific neighbours to reduce emissions by a further 10 per cent. Everyone knows there's millions and millions of hectares in Australia that we can better utilise through farming methods and through storing carbon in our soils and vegetation. That will enable us to provide high-integrity offsets not just for ourselves but for our neighbours. We also know that future technology breakthroughs will be incredibly important. We understand that investing in future new and emerging technologies will also be important for the last 15 per cent of emissions reductions. These are not just made-up ideas; these are numbers that are backed by scientific integrity and scientific investment. We will continue to do that as we work and partner with business to make sure that the R&D that's developed here in Australia and around the world gets to commercialisable, scalable outcomes that will fuel our super power outcomes for Australia. In the past, I've talked a lot in this place about our low-emissions technology strategy, and that's because I've believed in these technologies from the very start. I've really backed them in, and it's pleasing to hear that they are being talked about by the media more frequently now. Joe Biden has supported the five low-emissions technology stretch targets and added a sixth one. Those five stretch targets in our plan have now been increased to six stretch targets, as Joe Biden, the President of the United States, did earlier this year—except that our sixth stretch target is different from his. Our stretch targets include clean hydrogen under $2 a kilogram; ultralow-cost solar under $15 per megawatt hour; energy storage—that is, batteries—under $100 per megawatt hour; and low-emissions steel and aluminium steel production under $700 per tonne and aluminium under $2,200 per tonne. I note that the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, has said that he believes a stretch target on green cement will also be very important, and I back that statement in. The remaining targets are carbon capture and storage under $20 per tonne of CO2; and soil carbon measurement under $3 per hectare per year. These are incredibly important aspects of understanding the commercialisable aspects of getting to a clean-tech future. This morning I was out at a hydrogen pilot program in the ACT, which is being funded by Woodside. It's a partnership program. The federal government is investing billions of dollars—I think $1.2 billion—in hydrogen development, and it's also partnering with states and territories, which is a very good outcome. At this Woodside pilot program, I saw, for the first time, electrolysers in use. They are using green energy from the ACT grid to electrolyse water, produce hydrogen, compress the hydrogen and then take it to a pump. It's all there on site at this hydrogen hub. We actually put hydrogen into a hydrogen car, which we then drove around the corner. It's fantastic to see. It's like an electric vehicle but, instead of being plugged into a power point, it's plugged into a hydrogen pump. The hydrogen is very cold; you have to take the temperature right down. Instead of putting petrol into your bowser, you are putting hydrogen into the bowser. This is the future as we speak, and it is now coming at speed. As we know, when you start to commercialise things, the costs come down. We know that, as we move into the future, more and more of these projects will become our reality. So we have a plan. It's about technology, not taxes. It's about partnering with business. I'm very pleased to say that the bill that we're discussing today is a very important one to underpin this progress, and I commend the bill to the House. 11:59 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. Offshore wind is booming globally. As an island nation, Australia has a coastline of more than 60,000 kilometres, with very high wind resources indeed. And with that comes so much potential now for offshore wind energy. Already there are over 10 offshore wind proposals in Australia just waiting for legislation to be passed by this parliament now in order for their projects to be given the green light. One of those is off the coast of my home city of Newcastle. These projects promise enormous generation capacity, with tens of thousands of jobs in the construction phase—thousands of good, ongoing jobs and billions in investment. Importantly, most of these proposals, which have been waiting for this government to act for some time now, are sitting alongside our traditional energy regions, where we already have very strong infrastructure in place because of the electricity grids we have in our regions. It's regions, indeed, like Newcastle and the Hunter which have the most to gain from a thriving offshore wind industry. One single turn of an offshore wind turbine can provide as much energy as a whole day's worth of rooftop solar, and these turbines can turn 15 times per minute. Around the world, more than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity are already in operation, with expected increases up to 80 gigawatts by 2030 and 2,000 gigawatts by 2050. Currently, Australia's entire National Energy Market is around 55 gigawatts, so that's the enormous potential that awaits us all. We have more offshore wind resources than we could ever possibly use ourselves, and that means there's a lot of potential for exporting globally—exporting potential that regions like Newcastle and the Hunter could benefit from. It's deeply regrettable that all of those benefits have been on delay for so long because of the inaction of this government. Credible offshore wind projects have been waiting now for more than five years for this legislation. This is a government that has been in power for eight long years and they have spent those years fighting each other to figure out how they get onto a pathway to net zero. Eight years in government, and all they can deliver for regional Australia is a $31,000 promotion for one of their mates who doesn't believe the wind blows at night This government is more interested in its own self interest than what is in the national interest and, as a result, cities like Newcastle have missed out on job opportunities because this government has dragged its feet to bring critical legislation like this before the House. Now this government is trying to play catch-up so that communities like mine don't miss out, hopefully, on some of the great opportunities for jobs and industry in our lifetimes—opportunities for new traineeships and apprenticeships; for our local manufacturing and supply chains; for our seafarers; for the blue economy workers; and for those currently working in traditional resources industries. Newcastle can be a renewable energy powerhouse. Not only do we have the capacity to manufacture the parts needed for those wind turbines but we also have the deepwater port to export wind turbines. You cannot find many places in the world where you have the rail infrastructure, the manufacturing capacity and the deepwater port to produce and export offshore electricity. Investors have been waiting and waiting for this government to get its act together, to legislate for offshore electricity. That is seriously ironic, given the Morrison government's obsession with 'technology, not taxes'. Now that the legislation has been introduced, it is time for us to move fast. We don't have a moment to waste. Several of the submissions from the business community to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee have already made clear that the government must move quickly to declare wind zones and to award licences so that investors and industry can get on with the job. But let's not kid ourselves. There are some issues with this legislation that we on this side of the chamber feel have not been adequately addressed. In particular, Labor has concerns over the bills' work health and safety arrangements. The committee heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the harmonised national workplace health and safety laws in these bills. Instead, the government has opted to amend those laws to the point that they are actually no longer recognisable. Without harmonisation of the WHS frameworks, we may end up with a situation where a worker could be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second while in transit on a vessel and a third while working on an offshore renewable project. That will lead to confusion and pose a risk to both workers and employers. To be fair, there is disagreement on these points, including between the department, the regulator and stakeholders representing both employers and workers in the industry. Given the significant difference of opinion, Labor urges the government to urgently undertake further consultation on both the content of the WHS provisions and their coverage. Australia has some years to get this right during the feasibility period before construction begins, and it is crucial that we do that. The committee also heard consistent evidence that the merit criteria for licences should ensure benefits for local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people. The committee heard that it was important for this requirement to be reflected broadly in legislation in order to allow those benefits and ensure they are reflected in detailed regulations. Labor encourages the government to consider a legislative amendment to ensure benefits for local communities where these new energy industries will be situated. Already we have seen countries across the world include local procurement targets for offshore electricity within their local supply chain, development strategies and procurement policies. For example, in March 2021, the US Biden administration announced three coordinated steps to support rapid offshore wind deployment and job creation. The first was to advance ambitious offshore wind energy projects to create well-paying jobs, the second was to invest in infrastructure to strengthen the domestic supply chain and deploy offshore wind energy and the third was to support critical research and development and data-sharing. Offshore wind can develop into a single significant source of employment in the maritime blue economy. Australia's share of manufacturing and supply chain activity in most renewable energy sectors is low, but it does not have to be that way. Workers in Newcastle and the Hunter Region have seen what this government has done already to our manufacturing industry. In the last 10 years we have lost 8½ thousand manufacturing jobs in Newcastle and another 5,000 in the Hunter. That's over 10,000 families who have lost opportunities in the good jobs that manufacturing provides. After years of manufacturing decline, imagine the jobs we can create locally by creating new energy sources, like offshore wind, adding those to our current mix. Offshore wind also offers immense opportunity for the production of green hydrogen for export. Hydrogen produced by offshore wind directly or through the supply of electrolysis located in port facilities could be a real game changer. If we produce hydrogen from renewable energy, then Australia could forge a multibillion-dollar green industry with tens of thousands of new well-paid jobs. Newcastle in particular has the energy smarts, the industrial experience and the infrastructure needed to be a key player, but first the policy settings have to be right. There are opportunities now that can begin investment, create jobs and build confidence in the future of our regions, but only with the right leadership. If we do not start that work today, I am very worried that we will be playing catch-up and be left increasingly vulnerable on the world stage, because this Prime Minister and this government have left Australia and carbon-intensive regions like Newcastle and the Hunter hanging out to dry. We have the Glasgow climate summit in less than two weeks. Only now are the government trying to cobble together a strong enough statement to say they are going to commit to net zero emissions by 2050. Newcastle and the Hunter have got a lot at stake in any kind of energy transition in this nation, which is why we should be leading those discussions, ensuring that no-one is left behind as we take full advantage of every new energy opportunity ahead. There are important, very important, renewable energy opportunities that are ripe for the picking. But the Morrison government's announcement just yesterday was all slides and slogans. They only have one plan for the region, and that's a big scam. They have offered zero modelling, zero legislation and zero new policy. The Prime Minister has just removed the word 'preferably' from in front of the word '2050' but has announced no new policy to get there; nor has he shown the public any modelling. It's a question that the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, has put consistently to government, as we saw in question time yesterday—begging the Prime Minister to share that modelling with the Australian people. 'Bring the Australian people into your confidence. If you believe that the trajectory that you are about to set us on is the best one possible, share that information with the people.' But, no, that modelling has not been forthcoming. There are those deals that have been done with The Nationals. We know there are deals that have been done, but they are being kept secret and hidden as well, although we do know that one regional job has been secured—that of the climate-denying new federal minister for resources, which has been promoted back into cabinet, I understand. So his job is secure. But what I want to see is a plan that's going to make secure the jobs of tens of thousands of families in Newcastle and the Hunter. No more hiding your head in the sand, pretending that everyone can just go along the same as always and that this is the way it's going to be forevermore. Nobody believes that anymore. Everybody sees the lack of authenticity when the Prime Minister and, indeed, most of the government members stand up and try to say that we can just continue as is. No-one's wearing that. Their radar can detect that blatant, shameless lying going on among some government members. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 Order! I'll ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment about lying. It's unparliamentary language. Ms CLAYDON 248181 I will withdraw the word 'lying' and suggest, then, that I have had visits to my region from government members who have not spoken the truth. They have not spoken the truth. They like to rub a little bit of coal on their face and pretend they are at one with the mining community, but they do not tell them the truth. I think a change in rhetoric may be all that the Deputy Prime Minister allowed the current Prime Minister to get away with. But it's not enough for investors, it's not enough to bring energy prices down and it's not enough to create new jobs and new industries in my region. (Time expired) 12:15 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I want to acknowledge the important opportunity here to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the associated legislation. Why are these bills important? They are important for two reasons, as I see it. Firstly, Australia has the potential to be a global offshore wind superpower. We have one of the largest coastlines in the world. Our offshore wind resources are comparable to those of the North Sea, between Britain and Europe; the United Kingdom generates almost 10 per cent of its electricity from offshore North Sea wind resources. Even in Australia, if all the current offshore wind generation proposals were built the energy capacity from those would be greater than that from all our current coal-fired power stations. This is an immense potential resource, but to date we have not had the regulatory or legal framework to allow these things to proceed. These bills provide that framework. The other important element of these bills is to allow the grid stabilisation function. We know that as more renewables come into our electricity generating supply we need to find a way to stabilise them, because renewables, by their very nature, are intermittent in their generation; the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. You can either stabilise those over time by having electricity or energy storage facilities—things like pumped hydro schemes and large-scale batteries—or by distributing the power over distance. These bills will allow us to do things like build the Marinus Link and the various interconnector projects which will allow us to connect, in the Marinus Link case, the mainland with the offshore pumped hydro storage capabilities of Tasmania, and allow that to act as a stabilising force for our grid and allow greater renewable penetration into the grid. These bills provide the regulatory framework to allow offshore electricity infrastructure projects, including transmission and generation projects in Commonwealth waters. Both of those will be important—the generation side, because of our offshore wind capabilities, and the transmission side, which will allow us stabilisation grids. Some of the projects that could be enabled by this legislation include what I mentioned before: the Marinus Link, which will support Tasmania's hydro capability acting as the Battery of the Nation; also important, offshore wind projects in their own right like the Star of the South project, which is a proposed offshore wind farm off the coast of Gippsland, in Victoria, which has the potential to provide almost 25 per cent of Victoria's electricity consumption; and the Sun Cable, an important export opportunity for Australia—a proposed international transmission infrastructure line that will allow us to export solar power through a direct current cable, a DC cable, from Darwin to Singapore and beyond there into the region. These bills establish a licensing scheme for offshore electricity infrastructure projects and empower the minister—in this case, the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction—to declare areas suitable for offshore electricity infrastructure. This is a regime that requires public notice and consultation prior to any final declarations, which will mean that potentially affected stakeholders, including existing maritime users, fishermen and the like, are able to make submissions and make their views known. It allows the minister to grant these licences which will allow project proponents to undertake offshore infrastructure activities in these specified areas. The legislation also establishes the statutory authorities to administer and regulate this framework. NOPTA and NOPSEMA, which are the already-existing regulatory bodies involved in granting offshore oil and gas prospecting and exploration licences, will now take on, under this legislation, the administration and regulation of functions of these activities. They've already got significant experience in regulating offshore activities through their existing capabilities. When we talk about this, we need to bear in mind Australia's record on renewable energy generation and, indeed, emissions reduction, for that matter. Too often, in this debate, people who argue for more ambition seek to denigrate or diminish or discount what we've already achieved. I don't think you can have the basis for a factually sound and reasoned and rational debate unless you acknowledge what's gone before and the journey we've made to date, before you talk about some of the challenges of the future. Despite what you might hear and despite what some people would have you believe, Australia has a very good record on both renewable energy generation, installation of renewable energy capacity, and emissions reduction. Our latest emissions reduction figures show that our emissions have reduced by 20.8 per cent since 2005. Over the same period our economy is 45 per cent larger, our population is about 20 per cent larger and a large part of that emissions reduction, or more of it, has come from our domestic economy. If you view Australia as a domestic economy alone, our emissions reductions have been 35 per cent. That's because a lot of our emissions are in export related industries—some 40 per cent of them. What are the figures elsewhere around the world? We recognise that climate change is a global problem and that emissions reduction is a global challenge. Over the commensurate period, from 2005 until now, emissions have been reduced in Canada by one per cent; New Zealand by four per cent; the OECD average, for modern advanced economies, is seven per cent; Japan by 10 per cent; the United States by 13 per cent; and Australia by 20.8 per cent. The only group within the OECD that has bettered that is the EU, which has reduced its emissions by 23 per cent—in large part because they've outsourced or offshored a whole lot of their industrial and manufacturing capability. Australia is installing renewable energy generation at a record pace. We installed seven gigawatts of renewable energy last year, which is about eight times the global average of renewable energy generation. One in four Australian homes now have rooftop solar. In fact, in 2020 we had 378,451 rooftop solar installations in Australia, which is a world record. Renewable energy in Australia is now some 27.7 per cent of our electricity generation. That's the 2020 figure. It produces about 63 gigawatt hours. That figure was up 3.7 per cent from the previous year. Of the seven gigawatts of renewable energy installed last year, we had three gigawatts in small-scale solar, two gigawatts in large-scale solar and others in wind. So in 2020, as you can see, we've already made quite a transition in our energy mix. Coal is about 62 per cent still, on average, of our electricity generation; renewals is about 28 per cent; and gas—often, peaking gas—is around 10 per cent. What this bill will do is allow more renewable energy to go into the grid, because it will provide access to new resources, offshore wind, but it will also enable the stabilising infrastructure—particularly, the Marinus Link and other interconnectors—to go ahead. This is an important point that we've been debating in the House, over the last few days, the legislation. I know some people think we should be legislating a net zero by 2050 target. To me, that confuses the purpose of legislation. It confuses ends with means. To start with, our emissions reduction target is an international commitment. It's a treaty-level commitment. It's one we make on things all the time. The way you make a commitment internationally is you deposit an instrument or a ratification, or you deposit a new commitment with the treaty body repository. For Australia, net zero by 2050 will be contained in what's called a nationally determined contribution and it will be deposited with the custodian of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. That's how you make an international commitment. Legislation is the means to allow those commitments to take effect. This piece of legislation, for instance, the offshore electricity infrastructure bills, will provide us with one of the tools we need within our toolkit in order for that goal to be met—just as the recapitalisation of ARENA and new regulations for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency will provide another tool to allow this goal to be met. To me, it would be like if we wanted to legislate to limit inflation to two per cent or end childhood poverty or enforce reconciliation with our Indigenous peoples. You don't legislate for those things. Those things are policy goals, and you put in place legislative bills and tools to allow you to meet those goals. For inflation, it might be the independence of the Reserve Bank that you legislate for. For childhood poverty, it might be childhood assistance or childcare programs. For Indigenous reconciliation, it might be you legislate for a voice to parliament. But this is what the purpose of legislation is for, and I think it's important in this debate that we don't confuse ends with means. Legislation here is a means to an end; it's not an end in itself. You don't affect social policy change and you don't affect economic policy change with a bill. You do it with the assistance of the legislation, but you do it with the executive arms of government. That takes me to my next point, which is the issue we've been discussing this week, which is net zero and our Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan. I think this is a very important announcement the government has made this week, which is committing Australia to a firm target of net zero emissions by 2050. It has a number of important elements which I think work with the grain of consumer behaviour, capital market behaviour, the economy as we've got it and technology. What our Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan lays out, which was released accompanying the target, is how we plan to get to net zero. The lowest hanging fruit here is actually electricity generation. That's where we've made the most gains to date. This is what this bill will allow us to make the furthest gains in, and that's where the easiest and the cheapest emissions reductions are likely to come from—by putting more renewables in our electricity grid. The next gains are likely to be from electrification of the transport sector, and that's why we're doing things like investing large amounts in electric vehicle charging stations and transmission infrastructure but also things like hydrogen hubs to conduct the research and development and seek the commercialisation of hydrogen as a liquid fuel. The harder to make abatements, or mitigations, are going to be in sectors like agriculture and some industrial processes and fugitive emissions from things like mining. And, as the Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan lays out, these sources of emissions will either need to be abated with new technology or offset in some way, and that is going to be a challenge for the future. But I think, with the technology that we have currently available and that is commercially available, we can do a large part of our emissions reduction goal and get a long way to net zero without disrupting our economy, without destroying jobs or industries, without impacting on our way of life, without changing our diet, without doing any number of other things. We can do that with technology as it is. What we also lay out in our Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan is the technology targets we need to hit in order to move down that pathway. Some of those are important to recognise. Clean hydrogen at less than $2 a kilo—at that price point, hydrogen becomes commercially competitive as a source of energy for transport and other uses. Low-cost solar at less than $15 per megawatt hour—this is significantly lower than the wholesale cost now but it will allow large penetration into the network. Energy storage at less than $100 per megawatt hour storage—this is an important component of stabilising the intermittency of renewable energy sources. Green steel at under $700 a tonne—this would make it commercially competitive. That's direct reduced steel, using things like hydrogen rather than coking coal to reduce the iron ore to steel. We need green aluminium at less than $2,200 a tonne, and we need carbon capture and storage at less than $20 a tonne, because there will need to be carbon capture and storage in a net zero economy. Finally, we need to be able to measure soil carbon at less than $3 per hectare. All of those technologies, if we get to that price point, will get us at least another 40 per cent of our way towards net zero. Bear in mind we're already at 20 per cent. This will get us another 40 per cent. New technologies will take us a further 15 percent. Then abatements and offsets will need to take as the remainder of the way. I think it's important to recognise here that this economic transition is not something to be feared, it's not something that's unprecedented and it's not something that Australia has not gone through before. It's true we are a highly emissions-intensive economy at the moment, and that partly reflects our export mix and partly reflects our industry mix. But, if you think back through Australia's economic history, for most of our history since Federation our largest export was wool. Even as recently as 1970, at least half of Australian exports were wool and wheat. Resources have only really come on as major exports since the 1970s. They will remain as important exports into the future, but what our commitment to net zero and our Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan allow us to do is to generate new sources of exports and new sources of prosperity, which will remain essential in ensuring jobs and industries in our regions well into the future. 12:30 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga This Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 really reflects so much of the Morrison government's approach to climate policy. It's very late, and while this government has been dithering and playing political games—coming up with slogans—Australia has been missing out on the potential that offshore wind energy offers us in contributing to our energy needs, reducing our emissions and creating jobs. So it's good that this bill is finally here, albeit late. But the regulatory framework for Australia's offshore wind industry has been so delayed that vital projects and jobs remain mired. Labor has long called for legislation to unlock the benefits of offshore renewables, particularly offshore wind generation, because we know that we have enormous capacity here in Australia for offshore wind generation. As well as that generation capacity, offshore wind offers us thousands of jobs and billions in investment for regional communities, including—and especially—for those which are most impacted by changes in global energy markets. So it's shameful that these benefits have been delayed by this government. Those opposite had promised to aim that the legislative settings and framework for this would be in place and operational by mid 2021. Instead, we are belatedly getting the introduction of these bills, and we know that it will most likely take well into next year for them to be implemented. As I said, this reflects so much of the slowness around this government's climate policy and its attitude towards tackling climate change. I did hope, like so many in our country hoped, that this week would be different. We thought that this was the end of the more than a decade-long climate war; the end of eight years of inaction from this government and the end of slogan and spin—that we would have a result after all the bluster and noise that was coming out of the Nationals. But we were wrong. Let's be very clear about what we got out of the Prime Minister's big climate reveal yesterday: it was not a plan; it had no ambition. We got a pamphlet and we got some slides, not a plan—no legislated target and none of the increased ambition we need to avoid catastrophic warming. I do admit that there was one new part in yesterday's climate reveal: we did get some new slogans, and we do know that this is a prime minister who loves a good slogan. In fact, that's all this Prime Minister thinks it takes. He has no interest in grabbing hold of the jobs, the industries and the potential of the future, or of grabbing hold of the action that we need to take to make sure that our entire country benefits from it. He has no genuine commitment to net zero and the action we need to take to avoid catastrophic warming. In fact, how can he have any sort of genuine commitment when we look around him and see the balance he's trying to bring and the coalition he's trying to stitch together? His own Deputy Prime Minister has said that he doesn't believe in net zero—that's the Deputy Prime Minister who is going to be in charge when the Prime Minister takes off for Glasgow tomorrow. In fact we just heard in estimates questioning that this government has not had Treasury do any modelling on the economic costs or benefits of net zero by 2050, or indeed any modelling of climate-change-related impacts on the Australian economy—none at all! That says everything we need to know about the Prime Minister's commitment and about his government's commitment to genuine action on climate change; they're just not serious. But this is serious. It has been too long; it has been a political game to this Prime Minister and his government for far too long. This is not a political game. Under this government, this country has wasted so much time and we're now out of time to waste. Australia should be a renewable energy powerhouse and, of course, wind, including offshore wind, should be a big part of that. Just as with solar, we should be a wind superpower. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world. We have some of the best wind resources in the world. Anyone who's visited any of the coastline down in Victoria, where I'm from, would know that we have some very windy coastlines in our state. Across the country, we have more offshore wind resources than we could actually use to supply our domestic market. Recent research by the Blue Economy CRC indicates feasible wind resources of 2,223 gigawatts of capacity off Australia's coast. In fact, our entire national energy market is around 55 gigawatts. So there's room for this offshore wind energy capacity not just to help Australia with our energy needs and our transition to renewable energy but also to be an export for our country and for us to be able to help other countries as well as grow industries. Of course, because we're so late, the rest of the world has already moved on this. In fact, it was UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson who said that in 10 years time 'offshore wind energy will be powering every home in the country'. In the UK, they already have the world's largest offshore wind generation capacity, and in October 2020 the UK government announced a target of 40 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, up from its original target of 30 gigawatts by 2030. So the rest of the world is ahead of this government. Energy providers here in Australia are ahead of this government. They know the capacity that's there in our offshore wind. They've just been waiting for this government to catch up and bring some legislation that allows them to harness that. There are more than 10 projects that have been waiting on the government bringing on this legislation so that they can get on with the job, and these projects have massive capability. Again in my home state of Victoria, Star of the South, which will be off Gippsland, will produce enough energy to cover 20 per cent of our state's current energy needs. That is huge. A single turn of an offshore wind turbine can provide as much energy as a whole day's worth of rooftop solar. Some of the best wind resources are located just off the coasts of the regions that have powered our country and built the industries that have powered our country for generations now. These regions include Gippsland in my home state; the Hunter Valley, including Newcastle, which the member for Newcastle has just spoken about; the Illawarra; and Central Queensland, including Gladstone. These regions have all the things that support these offshore wind generation: the strong electricity grid infrastructure, the ports, the railways and the populations for new energy and new industries. It is striking that the proposals for offshore wind that we are seeing come forward in this country—the proposals that are ready to be unlocked once this government gets its act into gear—are in our traditional energy regions, because of this strong connection they have to the electricity grid and because of the infrastructure they already have in place. So it's these communities and these workers that have the most to gain from a thriving offshore wind energy industry. They will create the energy that will benefit all of Australia, but they will create the jobs that will benefit the regions and all of Australia as well. It's not just putting in place offshore wind infrastructure; it's the turbines that need maintenance and the network of ships and ports that are required for that maintenance. From a government that likes to talk up technology, not taxes, it's really disappointing to think that we've had to wait so long for this legislation, which allows us to unlock all of that potential. Labor does support this legislation and its aims. The bill establishes a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area; it allows the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure; it allows the energy minister to declare a certain area as suitable for offshore electricity infrastructure; and it establishes licence schemes for offshore electricity activities. As I said, Labor supports these aims. We are concerned that they've been too slow in coming and, again, that they are not as comprehensive as they should be. That's why I support the amendments that have been moved by the member for McMahon. I make it clear once again that we must move quickly on this. Industry is ready. The rest of the world is moving. It is time for Australia to catch up. This is long overdue, like most of the government's climate efforts. Let's not make offshore wind energy the other part of the puzzle that slips by this country because we've got a government that is focussed on slogans and a political game and is not actually focused on what will create the jobs of the future and what will make sure that our country transitions to net zero 2050 with a credible, actual plan to get us there. The IPC report makes it very clear that the window to act on climate change is closing. If we don't take significant action now, we miss that window and the consequences for all of us are dire. We will not limit warming to the level that we need for us all to have a future. That is a real consequence for all of us. And, of course, there are immediate economic consequences as we get locked out of the jobs and industries of the future—the jobs and industries of the future that we should have right now in this country. But we don't, because we get slogans rather than plans and commitments. In my community, the No.1 issue people raise with me is the need for genuine action on climate change, and they are not going to be bought off with a slogan. They are very clear that this country needs to transition—it needs to transition with the jobs and industries of the future, and it needs to transition so that we keep warming within acceptable levels for us all to have a future. We still haven't seen the plan, the commitment, from this Prime Minister and this government that allows my community and the rest of Australia to be assured that that's where we're heading. In contrast, of course, Labor is very clear that we are committed to net zero by 2050. There are no quibblers on our side—no-one who accepts the party room decision but actually tells the media they don't back it. We have plans in place. We have a new energy apprenticeship program to train 10,000 young people for the energy jobs of the future. We want to make electric vehicles cheaper by cutting input and fringe benefit taxes and developing Australia's first national electric vehicle strategy. We want to invest in community batteries. We want to fix and modernise the electricity grid, with $20 billion to rewire the country. We know that you don't just do this work with a pamphlet. You do this work with commitment, with thoroughness and with the policies that back it up. We continually fail to get those policies and get that commitment from those on the other side. We don't have more time for political posturing, games and slogans; it is time for action. I say to my community: I continue to hear your voices on this. I know you're not satisfied with what's come out of this government this week. I will keep fighting for our country to do more—to do what we have to do—to tackle climate change and get us all the future we deserve. 12:43 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar It's probably fair to say that the contributions from those opposite on this debate have been, as always, disappointing. They cannot help themselves. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Lingiari will withdraw. Mr Snowdon IJ4 I withdraw. Mr FALINSKI G86 While the member for Lingiari is insulting people personally when he doesn't agree with their ideas, when they won't bow to his thuggery, let me explain to him why the contribution from his side has been so disappointing. Apparently, to listen to their speeches, they're all in favour of this piece of legislation. In fact, they tell us that their only complaint is that we didn't do it sooner, ignoring the fact, of course, that when they were in government the greatest moral challenge of our times got swept under the carpet because it became too difficult for them. So instead of congratulating the government yesterday for doing something that they could never achieve when they were in power, they come here and they whinge and they whine and they complain that we just didn't act soon enough. Now we're acting. But, once again, in this most extraordinary of situations, they find themselves moving yet another piece of meaningless second reading amendment. You have to ask yourself: why do the Labor Party continue to move these second reading amendments? Could it have anything to do with this mysterious website called theyvoteforus.com.au? (Quorum formed) The Labor Party keep calling for quorums because they don't want to talk about theyvoteforus.com.au. The reason they don't want to talk about these left-wing front groups is that it exposes their hypocrisy over and over again on these debates and so many other debates. They move these second reading amendments because of their big-tech billionaires, litigation lawyers and industry super. You may note one group missing in all of that—organised labour. That's because Labor are no longer the party of organised labour. They are no longer the party of the working men and women of this country, because most of them haven't even met one in their entire lives. They are too stuck in the boardrooms of AustralianSuper in Collins Street, where they get to look over all that they have taken over. That's why they don't care. They don't care if electricity prices go through roof. They can come in here and quote to us, as often as they want, what Boris Johnson thinks of offshore energy. But what they won't stand up and talk about are all those pensioners in the United Kingdom who will not be able to afford heating this winter because of the sorts of politics that Labor would happily inflict on the Australian people from this place. But, don't worry, there's theyvoteforus.com.au—the big-tech billionaires who have got their hands in their pockets and are fronting up all these left-wing front groups for them. Talk about astroturfing—astroturfing, thy name is the Labor Party and the crossbench support that they rely on! The absurdity of their position over and over again—even for a bill that they claim they support they still have to move second reading amendments, they still have to quote Boris Johnson. This year the pensioners of the United Kingdom will find themselves either not being able to afford heating or not be able to feed themselves because of gas prices, because of Boris Johnson and the UK's over-reliance on offshore wind energy and under-reliance on nuclear energy and gas. But Labor don't want to talk about that. They want us to go headlong into magic bean solutions for the climate and for the energy market, because that's what their backers, that's what their funders, that's what their donors want them to do. The working men and women of this country that you used to represent, that you used to stand up for, can go to hell as far as you guys are concerned—people; sorry, I don't mean to be gender specific about that. What this shows is that we on this side are relying on technology. What we are doing on this side is actually creating the environment and the frameworks that allow other Australians, innovative Australians, to go out there and build the future, to go out there and build the electricity grid of the future. This legislation is not about banning, is not about mandating, is not about telling people what they can buy and how they can live; this is about creating an environment that enables investors to make decisions that will allow Australians to live in a net zero world sooner rather than later. It does this by encouraging them to do that. It does this by enabling them to do that. It does this by creating a positive vision about what this nation can be. But most of all it does this by getting government out of the way of people who have the solutions to this problem. We keep hearing that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy anywhere in the world. Well, if government is not in the way, then investors will start providing that energy. You only have to look at the New South Wales government and their renewable energy zones to see the billions of dollars just waiting on the sidelines to invest in this sort of technology. Yes, we don't have all the solutions yet. Anyone who says they do is talking through their hat, but what we do know through the IPCC report—and those opposite should read past the executive summary. They should read chapters 2, 3 and 8 that talk about the importance of nuclear energy, that talk about the importance of firming in dispatch power, that talk about the importance of carbon capture and storage to humanity getting to a net zero world. Yes, it also talks about the importance of renewable energy and it talks about the importance of offshore energy. Those on this side, like the member for Higgins, like the member for North Sydney, like the member for Wentworth, have pointed to all those things that sit before us right now. It only takes our capacity to reach out and grasp them, and that's what this bill does. This is a package of three bills: the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021 and the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, all of which were introduced to the House on 2 September. These bills will establish that regulatory framework that will allow that investment, that will allow those things to occur, that will allow that positive vision to come to life. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill, the main bill, establishes that framework to enable the development of offshore electricity infrastructure. The proposed framework covers all phases of development from construction through to decommissioning of generation and transmission projects. Projects that could be enabled by this legislation include the Marinus Link project over the long-term and support Tasmania's Battery of the Nation vision that would see dispatchable power going into the grids of Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. That will allow more renewable energy to be used as part of our grid, because that dispatchable power will be sitting there. There is also the Star of the South, which many members have mentioned, which will allow 2.2 gigawatts of energy to come into the grid in Victoria that could, at different times of the day, represent 20 per cent of their electricity needs. We also have Sun Cable, which is backed, of course, by Twiggy Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brookes, and they are proposing to send electrons from the Northern Territory to Singapore. This is something that has had the backing of the Northern Territory government and of course the federal government and of course those private sector investors—and they are taking on the risk of innovating for that project. I think if the opposition were directly involved in that, two things would probably happen: it would be over budget and it would never quite work the way we want it to. Because of this innovation, because of this private sector involvement, Australia will be exporting renewable energy to Singapore sometime in the near future. I am told this framework will see 10 projects that are already at proof of concept come into the marketplace, and investment can commence. And why wouldn't it? Australia has some of the best areas for offshore wind and also onshore wind. That is what Geoscience Australia says. We are responsible for some of the largest areas of territorial waters, globally speaking. Innovations in floating offshore wind farms are allowing the deployment of those stations further and further out to sea, all within bodies of water that Australia has control over. That will represent massive opportunities for us to electrify our grid. Now, as Rewiring Australia has pointed out—and as Bill Gates argued quite succinctly in his book—the best and clearest path not just for Australia but for the entire world towards net zero globally is to electrify everything we can. To do that, we will need to produce in Australia somewhere between five and six times as much electricity as we currently do; and, globally, eight times as much. That task should not be underestimated by anyone in this chamber or anyone in the media who thinks, 'Well, now we've declared it, we can all go home.' No, this will be an incredibly difficult task for us to fulfil. It is important to note that these bills are not just about offshore wind. They will also enable undersea cabling, which is also incredibly important for enabling us to get power—the most obvious case being from Tasmania to the mainland. If we can achieve these things, if we can make this work, then Australia can indeed set up a future where we have very cheap, very clean energy. We can also start to attract to our nation the manufacturing jobs that we lost under the carbon tax. People will realise that this is the best place to make green steel and clean aluminium because the major cost of that is energy, and the energy that will be produced in Australia will be in such abundance that there will only be one logical place in the world to produce those materials and those goods, and that is here. I call on the Labor Party to stop playing games for the benefit of their big-tech billionaires and to get with the program. 12:58 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley In January 2020, the Morrison government promised Australians that our offshore renewable industry would be open for business by mid-2021. Yet here we are, with 2½ months left until the end of the year, debating the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. This bill will establish a regulatory framework to allow for the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore electricity infrastructure in Commonwealth areas. Labor has been campaigning for a legislative framework to unlock the benefits of offshore renewables for some time. There is growing commercial interest in an Australian offshore electricity sector, with a dozen offshore wind prospects currently in the early planning stages around the country. These offshore renewable energy projects tick all of the boxes when you think of bang-for-buck economic investment. Offshore renewable energy has the potential to create a reliable and affordable electricity network that guarantees Australia's future energy security. It will see billions of dollars invested in Australia, creating tens of thousands of jobs while delivering social and economic benefits in our regional communities. It will maximise import and export trade opportunities which leverage our renewable energy resources. Offshore renewable energy also has the potential to expand our local manufacturing capacity and expand scalable supply chain benefits for small and medium enterprise in Australia, with the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre estimating that manufacturing components for offshore winds creates eight times more jobs than the construction of projects. This level of investment in the manufacturing sector would be a game changer for my electorate of Lilley, which has a proud manufacturing history but which has struggled under eight years of an LNP government. In the absence of a regulatory framework, the economic and environmental benefits of offshore wind and other offshore renewables have been delayed by the Morrison government. There are three key areas where this bill could be improved to make it fit for purpose, and these issues were raised by key industry stakeholders during the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. First and foremost, the bill fails to reflect serious concerns that were raised in the Senate inquiry about the work health and safety framework. The inquiry had substantial evidence that the work health and safety provisions of the bill should be fully harmonised with the national work health system, in turn providing consistent and robust protections for workers. Instead of heeding this advice, the Morrison government has amended the work health and safety provisions beyond recognition. As the bill stands, a worker would be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second while in transit on a vehicle and a third while working on an offshore renewable project. This patchwork of health and safety regulation poses significant risk and confusion for workers and employers alike. Secondly, this bill fails to create a provision which allows government electricity-planning agencies, developers or state governments to request that the minister commence the process of declaring an offshore electricity area. It also fails to provide a time line for when that process will be complete, and it doesn't provide transparency and certainty as to the matters the minister shall consider in making the declaration. Finally, the bill fails to address evidence received by the Senate inquiry on the importance of legislated merit criteria on socioeconomic benefits for local workers, for business communities and for First Nations people when issuing a feasibility licence, commercial licence or transmission licence. The minister should also be required to consider the potential impacts of offshore renewable energy infrastructure on our precious marine environment, of which my electorate is a beneficiary. The merit based and environmental criteria must be reflected in this legislation to ensure they are reflected in detail in subsequent regulations. These three improvements would provide greater certainty to a future offshore wind industry and ensure that the economic benefits of local supply chains are maximised while providing the highest possible standards for workplace health and safety. COVID highlighted the fragility of our economy against the impact of disaster. It pulled into focus the value of scientific knowledge in anticipating, preparing for and managing the impact of natural shocks. Most importantly, it weakened the domestic and global standing of political leaders who refused to take science seriously. As our global allies and domestic peak bodies commit to net zero by 2050 to tackle climate change, the Morrison government remains conspicuously outside the tent, refusing to offer real solutions to tackle climate change and protect our environment. And it is quite a big tent. Every state and territory in Australia has signed up to net zero, the Business Council has signed up, the National Farmers Federation has signed up, the Minerals Council has signed up and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association has signed up. Yet somehow, after eight years in government, the Morrison government is still divided on the basic science of climate change and has come up with a PowerPoint plan to reach net zero by 2050 that would fail as a grade 7 science project. Blindly led by an outdated ethos and held hostage by climate deniers, science doubters and conspiracy theorists, the Morrison government isn't just embarrassing us on the global stage but they're actively hurting our economic success and undermining the environmental and social wellbeing of our great nation. They have no timetable for action and they have no set destination; they're fixated with short-term political acts over long-term vision. Above all, the Morrison government continues to misjudge the time frames in which we must act before irreparable damage is done. Until net emissions fall to zero, global average temperatures will keep increasing. Even if greenhouse emissions fall but remain positive, temperature increases will be slowed but they will not stop. And while we are the ones who are making the decisions today, it is the future generations who will pay the price. The time for action is now. Decarbonising our economy and investing in renewable energy isn't the death knell for the Aussie blue-collar worker that the Morrison government would have us believe. It will not end the Aussie weekend and it will not take away your lawnmower or your ute. Tackling the climate emergency by investing in renewable energy actually presents Australia with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for significant economic growth in our post-pandemic recovery. From a domestic viewpoint, public and private investment in solar and wind generation, energy storage and transmission to link resources to expanding industrial centres has the potential to create new jobs quickly, to lift our employment rate and to increase wages sustainably. From a global stance, embracing the opportunities of a low-carbon world economy would change the structure of the Australian industry for the better by reducing emissions whilst also lowering costs and increasing global competitiveness. Decarbonising our electricity and embracing renewable energy will also ensure our that our Aussie manufacturing sector is equipped for the future. Aluminium is currently the most electricity-intensive product entering world trade in large volumes, and Australian competitiveness in coal based aluminium smelting has been challenged by rising electricity costs. In the current environment, no mainland Australian smelter is guaranteed long-term survival in the absence of fundamental changes in electricity supply. This will have serious consequences for companies like GJames in my electorate of Lilley, which is a successful family-owned business employing over one thousand local workers to manufacture glass and aluminium. While the Morrison government sits on its hands, Australian industry is stepping up and leading the way in pursuing net zero emissions by 2050. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has identified the sector as a key target in its strategy to support industry in reducing emissions, and has partnered with Rio Tinto to conduct a feasibility study at the Yarwun refinery in Gladstone to find a way to partially decarbonise refining by using renewable hydrogen in calcination. I know that the best prospect for Australia in the post-pandemic economic recovery is an accelerated transition to low-cost renewables because I've seen the blueprint for success in my own electorate of Lilley. GEM Energy is a solar power and battery company in Pinkenba, near Brisbane Airport. I had the pleasure of meeting with the CEO of GEM Energy, Jack Hooper and his team—and his dogs!—last week to gain some more insight into the future of the energy landscape in Australia, including our renewable targets and how we can ensure grid stability and cheaper energy prices for all Australians. The growth of the renewable energy industry has enabled GEM Energy to expand from a small operation in regional Emerald to a company which employs over 50 full-time staff, and it has delivered over $160 million worth of solar and battery projects. The story of GEM Energy proves that there's a bright future for Australian workers in renewable energy. I have also seen the opposite side of this story, where the Liberal led Brisbane City Council decided to outsource the manufacturing of electric buses to a company in China instead of manufacturing them at Volgren in Eagle Farm, risking the jobs of dozens of local workers. I'm glad to report that Volgren is progressing in spite of Mayor Schrinner and his Liberal mates, and has recently announced that it will be doubling its workforce over the next year to prepare itself for the opportunity that manufacturing electric buses will bring. As the federal member for Lilley, I have a simple, effective and commonsense plan to boost our local economy. First is northside infrastructure projects built, secondly, by northside workers and, thirdly, using equipment and materials manufactured in Australia. In line with this plan, there is no comparable opportunity for nation-building public and private investment on the same scale as renewable energy. As elected representatives tasked with securing Australia's future, we must grab this opportunity with both hands. We cannot stand by and allow our economy and our workers to be unprepared for the global shift in energy supply. Australia has the opportunity to emerge as a winner in a low-pollution global economy, but only under the right leadership. We need a just transition and investment in the renewable energy sector, and we need an Albanese Labor government to do it. An Albanese Labor government will harness the power of renewables to power our manufacturing, develop our hydrogen industry and create a generation of secure well-paid jobs. We will unleash the power of our solar, hydro and wind power stations by rewiring the nation, building a new transmission line to connect renewables to industry. We will give power back to the people by building community batteries for household solar. And, with our electric car discount, we will cut taxes on electric vehicles, making them cheaper for families to buy. We will join with the rest of the world and adopt a target of net zero emissions by 2050, creating jobs, cutting electricity bills and lowering pollution. We will invest $100 million to support 10,000 new energy apprenticeships and $10 million in a new energy skills program. We will support the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Labor set up when last in government and which the coalition has spent seven years undermining. There is a real need for industry policy to ensure that the offshore renewable energy industry achieves its potential. Offshore wind is not one of the technologies prioritised by the government's low-emissions technology road map—another missed opportunity by the Morrison government to harness the power of renewable energy. An Albanese Labor government will prioritise offshore wind regulation to unlock the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs for Australia's regions that the Prime Minister is stalling on. I thank the House. 13:12 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to support the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. This bill is part of a package of three bills including the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021, which were introduced in the House on 2 September. Together these bills establish a regulatory framework to enable offshore electricity infrastructure projects, principally offshore wind, including transmission generation projects in Commonwealth waters. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, the main bill, establishes a regulatory framework to enable the development of offshore electricity infrastructure. The proposed framework covers all phases of development, from construction through to decommissioning, of generation and transmission projects. This is an important bill. As speakers have indicated, the offshore wind industry is sweeping the world, and it's only right, and indeed necessary, that we see offshore wind projects off Australia's coastline—some 60,000 kilometres of coastline blessed with windy conditions. A portion of that coastline is in my electorate of Barker. It wasn't a surprise to me that I received a phone call in mid-August this year from representatives of Australis Energy, the wholly owned subsidiary of Australis Energy, which is registered in England and Wales, who are currently looking at an offshore wind project off the coast of Kingston South East—that is Kingston in the south-east, not Kingston in the Murray, both of which are in the electorate of Barker. This particular project, it is understood, will have the generation capacity of 600 megawatts, or enough to power 400,000 South Australian homes, and create up to 100 permanent high-quality jobs across its lifespan. All of this sounds excellent: 100 jobs, powering 400 South Australian homes. But, of course, what this legislation does is say to proponents of projects like this one that we as a nation are going to establish a regulatory framework to ensure that (a) the application, the proposal and the project take place in a way that meets the necessary environmental and other approvals; and (b) in the event that ultimately the project requires decommissioning at end of life, that is undertaken, again, in a way that's environmentally sensitive and in accordance with important regulations. And, of course, the legislation provides a framework in the event that the proponents, either during the construction phase, during the operation stage or even at the point of decommissioning, are not in a financial position to meet the commitments associated with decommissioning or making good that project. That's why I regard this legislation as particularly important. We don't want a situation where we have a host of stranded assets which are subject to seasonal conditions out at sea—which we all know to be particularly caustic—without there being, if you like, the kind of backup required in the event of insolvency or other maladventure. I have sought to engage the local community. I've spoken to the Mayor of Kingston District Council, Kay Rasheed. She is yet to be provided with a detailed brief in relation to this project. It was announced on 24 August this year. It is now more than two months since that date, and the local community hasn't been actively engaged. I've just come off a call to the executive officer of the South Eastern Professional Fisherman's Association. For the benefit of the House, Kingston is where you'll find the Big Lobster, so it might not be a surprise to those in the House to know that there is a significant southern rock lobster fishery at Kingston. The comment I received was that it would be nice to be engaged. I take it from that that Australis Energy hasn't reached out to the local professional fishermen's association at this stage. I say all of this from the perspective that I, Her Worship the mayor and representatives of the local rock-lobster-fishing industry sound supportive of this project, and no doubt are. But I encourage Australis Energy to reach out to community leaders and provide further detail in relation to this project. Even the information I've been given, outside of what I can obtain publicly on their website, can be best described as brief. It's important that the community be engaged, because the community needs to be involved. I understand the application has been made to the South Australian government, and all of that is fine and dandy, but local communities need to be part of these decisions, and I encourage Australis Energy: engage the local community, including the local rock lobster fishermen, and take them on this journey with you. My experience in this place over eight years, in dealing with projects like this—not least the Beach Energy project in the south-east of South Australia, which sought permission to hydraulically fracture and mine for gas in the south-east—is that they have met with significant opposition, for many reasons, one of which may well have been the failure to positively engage the local community. 13:25 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner No advanced country is more affected by dangerous climate change than Australia. Extreme weather events, including floods and bushfires, have afflicted Australian agriculture and households. Australia has the highest emissions per person in the advanced world, yet we're doing the least to combat climate change. According to this year's Sustainable development report, Australia ranked last of 193 countries for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What little reduction there has been under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments has occurred despite them, not because of them. Labor's renewable energy target and state government land-clearing policies have accounted for the lion's share of the emissions reductions, which nonetheless are significantly smaller than we saw under the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments. We have, in this country, a range of organisations committed to fighting against climate action. Among them is the Institute of Public Affairs, whose executive director, John Roskam, once told the Sydney Morning Herald: Of all the serious sceptics in Australia, we have helped and supported just about all of them … Whether that's Ian Plimer, Jennifer Marohasy or Peter Ridd, you've seen the Institute of Public Affairs backing climate misinformation and working hard against climate action. So it might come as little surprise to the House that the name for the Institute of Public Affairs newsletter is 'The Australian way'. How appropriate that the package brought down by the Morrison government bears the very same name as the newsletter of the No. 1 denialist think tank in Australia. The fact is that what we saw from the Prime Minister yesterday was sideshows and slideshows, as the member for McMahon has noted. We didn't see any commitment to serious climate action. As the leader of the Labor Party said yesterday, we saw, from the Prime Minister, net zero modelling, net zero legislation and net zero unity. This should be called the 'Joyce-Morrison government' for the way in which the Nationals tail is wagging the Liberal dog. When the Prime Minister gets on a plane to go off to Glasgow, the person left in charge of the country will be the member for New England, who himself opposes net zero by 2050. But net zero by 2050 isn't the goal of the Glasgow talks; it's a bare minimum pledge, which most advanced countries signed up to years ago. The debate at Glasgow is going to be over what countries will do by 2030, and the Prime Minister will turn up to that debate with the same 2030 targets as Tony Abbott, the climate change denier who once called climate change 'absolute crap' and mistakenly referred to carbon dioxide as a colourless, weightless gas—leading to a terrific riposte by Malcolm Turnbull, who noted that he should try and make that argument to anyone who has ever dropped a block of dry ice on their foot. The fact is that this government is running from serious climate action. It has worked for the past eight years in cahoots with climate denialists. Under the Morrison, Turnbull and Abbott governments, we have seen renewable energy jobs gutted. We have seen a failure of leadership. As Warwick McKibbin, who's not always a cheerleader for this side of the House, has noted: '"Technology, not taxes" is actually a marketing device rather than a policy. It is actually "inefficient costly policy and not low cost efficient policy". The question is: how many "sneaky" income taxes are ultimately going to pay for the government's net zero strategy?' The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 44 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Bangladesh: Racism 44 13:30 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon [by video link] I've recently met with concerned members of the Bangladesh Australia community in my electorate. These Australians have family in Bangladesh where there has been in recent weeks rising sectarian violence against the Hindu community. This has included the burning and smashing of Hindu temples and Hindu homes and the murder of Hindu people, including priests. Many Hindu women are afraid to leave their home, and, given that Hindu women have been abused and assaulted, it is no wonder that they are scared. The official death toll is seven people killed. However, the real number is expected to be much higher. At least 300 temples and houses have been burnt down, but, again, this is likely to be an understatement. The Bangladeshi government says that they are investigating mob related crimes by Muslim extremists, but the Hindu community fears that this is a continuance of the decades-long campaign to force Hindu Bangladeshis from their home to seek refuge in India. Indeed, there have been at least 3,600 attacks on Hindus since 2013. I call on the federal government to urge the Bangladeshi government to ensure that human rights, including the freedom of religion, are upheld and protected in their country. The victims must be supported, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. The Glen Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre 44 13:31 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to congratulate The Glen Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre for being named Outstanding Community Organisation of the Year at the 2021 Central Coast Regional Business Awards. The Glen is the only male-specific drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre in our region, and it was recognised for their incredible community spirit and the extraordinary work that they do in giving people a second chance. CEO, Alex Lee, said the Central Coast community has been very supportive of the centre, with many businesses donating food during the COVID-19 pandemic and offering clients job opportunities to help them to rebuild their lives. Alex said the award has been a real boost to our clients and staff and they are all extremely proud. We are very proud of you as well. The federal government has also committed $9 million towards a new Glen centre for women, and construction is on track. A local company North Construction & Building is working on the build, and I'm advised that The Glen will start advertising for jobs soon and expect to have staff on site from March next year. Executive director of the centre, Joe Coyte, has said that the build includes space for 20 beds, a multipurpose room, recreation spaces and a group room. Joe said he hopes the new building will be a home for many women, where they feel comfortable to rebuild their lives. Programs are being designed and will include a lot of activities that promote physical, cultural and artistic forms of healing. The whole community is excited for the facility to open, and I can't wait to see it myself. Congratulations to all at The Glen. Kelmscott Agricultural Show, Woolf, Mr Russell 44 13:33 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt [by video link] After a hiatus for COVID-19 in 2020, the Kelmscott show was back this month. I was down there on Friday night and Saturday with my family, Team Keogh and thousands of others. We had a fantastic couple of days on rides and checking out displays, sheep shearing and local community stalls as well as having lots of chats. The Kelmscott show is an institution. Kicking off in 1897, it's even older than the Perth Royal Show. I've been to nearly every show every year of my life, and it's always a family affair. This year was no different, with three generations of Keoghs joining in the festivities—my son having to share this show and my parents with his new baby brother and cousin for the first time. I also want to say a very special congratulations to my mum, who won the best marmalade in show. To all the volunteers, especially the Kelmscott Agricultural Society members, who made the show as fantastic as ever: well done, and thank you for all of your hard work. I want to take this opportunity, though, to acknowledge a giant of the Western Australian media landscape, ABC Perth's Russell Woolf, who tragically passed away on Monday night. I was fortunate enough to have met Rusty, and he was very gracious with my young son's curiosity about his beard. Russell Woolf regaled us from regional WA and Perth and even entered our living rooms with crosses from Minneapolis. He was generous, entertaining and eminently lovable. Our prayers go out to his family, friends and ABC colleagues. Vale, Russell. Climate Change 45 13:35 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to commend the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction on yesterday's announcement of our long-term emissions reduction plan, which sets out how Australia will achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This plan has been agreed on after extensive consultations and robust debate, as is proper, and I'm confident this plan will not create any adverse economic imposts on rural and regional communities like mine in O'Connor. It will use technology, not taxes, with no new costs imposed on O'Connor households and businesses. It will use consumer choice, not legislated mandates, by doing things like incentivising the uptake of ultralow-cost solar, blue and green hydrogen and other energy-efficient technologies, without enterprise-stifling restrictions on O'Connor's mining, manufacturing and agricultural exports. Farmers will benefit as techniques are developed and improved to accurately measure soil carbon to a depth of one metre, opening up a massive market for offsets across millions of arable hectares. The hardworking miners and farmers across O'Connor produce around $20 billion of exports for our nation, and the future viability of these industries is my primary concern, which is why I welcome the PM's announcement that the Productivity Commission will be conducting five-yearly audits into the economic health of our regions. Finally, the 3,000 workers at the Collie coalmines and power stations and at Worsley alumina refinery can look forward to the future with confidence. Under this government's plan, there will be no forced closures of mines, power stations and energy-intensive processing industries. (Time expired) Tran, Mr Huy 45 13:36 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I rise to speak of the tragic death last week of Huy Tran, a long-term member of the Cabramatta branch of the Labor Party. Huy was one of the first Vietnamese people I met. He welcomed me to the community when I became the member for Fowler. At just 45 years of age, Huy's unexpected death was a surprise to all of us and was such a tragic loss to his family and friends. Huy was a good friend to me. He was a political colleague totally committed to the values of Labor. He was a corporal in the Australian Army Reserve and was also highly regarded by his colleagues at Western Sydney University. Huy was always active in and a strong contributor to my election campaigns. As a long-term resident of Carramar, he was an impressive advocate for the needs of the community and was never afraid to raise matters of local importance. Huy also spoke regularly with me about issues of human rights in Vietnam, and clearly he was a champion of diversity and multiculturalism in our community. Above all, he was a proud family man. His joy was in his wife, Mai Le, and his two children, Vi and Nam. Huy will be deeply missed by his parents, his family and his friends, as well as our diverse community of Western Sydney and particularly those of us in the Labor Party. May he rest in peace. Longman Electorate: St Columban's College 45 13:38 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman [by video link] Recently I was invited to the St Columban's College campus in Caboolture for a tour of its biggest project to date. Since February, 18 students have worked with mentors from Flight Youth Engineering to build a certified two-seat Van's RV-12 training aircraft from the ground up. That's right: 18 high school students are building an actual plane that will really fly. St Columban's is the first school in Australia to implement this program. Once completed, the aircraft will be sold, with the funds enabling another build. It is expected that, by the third aircraft, the program will be financially self-sufficient. The primary outcomes of this project are threefold: to improve education and employment outcomes for youth; to contribute to meeting industry skills shortages in STEM; and to provide access to aircraft for rural communities. This initiative engages our youth directly with industry, developing work-ready skills and greater employment outcomes for participants. There is predicted to be high demand for both aviation engineering and piloting jobs, with many in the industry due to retire shortly, and this initiative will contribute to meeting this demand. St Columban's plans to share its experience from this program with other schools across Australia so more schools can deliver this much-needed program. The school has raised $50,000 for the program and is seeking further financial support from the business community to purchase the engine and electronics. I would like to thank Flight Youth Engineering, St Columban's College principal Mike Connolly and the college for supporting these students on their journey. Veterans 46 13:39 Mr ROB MITCH M3E McEwen ELL (—) (): Today I rise to condemn this government for its continual and abysmal treatment of veterans. A government that has fought tooth and nail against a royal commission to support veterans is now making veterans wait over 500 days to have their claims heard. It is an absolute national disgrace. These veterans have fought hard for our country, given their service, and they deserve that the right thing be done. The MRCA legislates that veterans' claims to get that support be answered within 90 days. The government has stretched it out to over 120 days with COVID-19; alright, you accept that—but, Jesus, 500 days of not getting an answer, not actually getting support? And the minister refuses to answer any questions that are asked of him. In fact, he refuses to answer even our questions. We need to know why the government thinks so little of veterans that it has decided that two years is okay. Unless it's life threatening or you're homeless, they've said, 'Bad luck; wait your turn.' We've seen the way that this government disgracefully treated Julie-Ann Finney and the work that she did to get a royal commission going. But this minister is unbelievably lazy and doing nothing. The first thing he should do is get off his backside and respond to veterans. The RSL are at their wits' end trying to get support, and you can't get an answer out of this government. I was happily turfed out of here last week for asking this question, but it would be nice if the minister actually responded for once, like his predecessor used to do. He would talk to us and actually help veterans. This bloke is doing absolutely nothing, and it's outrageous. North Sydney Electorate: Diwali 46 13:41 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney At this time of year, many residents in my electorate will be joining almost a billion people around the world of Hindu, Sikh and Jain faith in celebrating Diwali. Diwali is one of the most important festivals for those faiths and is a time of renewal, light and colour. It is referred to as the festival of light and it represents the victory of good over evil and light over darkness. And, while we may have witnessed some darkness during the last 18 months from the pandemic, we are certainly seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I know that, with the resumption of overseas travel, there will be many in our Indian community celebrating Diwali, knowing that they will be able to visit their family and friends again. I'm very proud of the contribution that those of Indian and Nepalese origins and from other Hindu, Sikh and Jain backgrounds are making to my part of Sydney. Sadly, this year and last, COVID has meant that many of the celebrations in my community have not been able to occur. But I want to acknowledge the work of local community organisations, like my friends at the Lane Cove Indian community association, who have found new ways to mark important festivals like this online. I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the celebrations of Diwali back in the streets of my community in the years ahead. So, to all of those celebrating Diwali across Australia, in my electorate and indeed around the world, I want to say: Shubh Diwali, and I hope the festival brings enormous joy and happiness to your families. Coal Industry 46 13:42 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The announcement has been made that there will be net zero emissions by 2050. It is not humanly possible for us to meet that time frame without closing down the Australian coal industry. Now, either the government and the ALP are lying through their teeth or, alternatively, the coal industry is closing down. If the coal industry closes down—half of the nation's entire income comes from iron ore and coal, and half of that is coal. Iron ore, zinc, aluminium and copper comprise almost all of our exports, and of course all of the metals are mined. That's ore. Turning the ore into metals requires smelting. Smelting requires coal. So, again, unless we are seeing a monumental piece of lying hypocrisy, then all of Australia's income, real income, vanishes. I'm not talking about round-robin industries. Vanishes— (Time expired) Climate Change 46 13:44 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong In great news for the country and the planet, Australia has now a target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Our Prime Minister will be able to go to Glasgow confident that we're doing our part to tackle one of the biggest challenges facing humanity today. With this commitment and this plan, we know we can achieve what we set out to do. As with everything else, there's a lot of interest about this in Bennelong. I have met multiple times with local groups, including the Bennelong Climate Action Group, Christians Together for Climate Bennelong and Citizens Climate Bennelong. I trust they will all welcome this announcement and this commitment. We will get there sooner. All across Bennelong, more and more homes are going solar, electric car numbers are on the rise—Hyundai, which is headquartered in Bennelong are world leaders in hybrid electric and hydrogen powered vehicles—and businesses across Bennelong are cashing in on the opportunities offered by this new direction. I have had faith in our ability to develop green technologies to increase the speed of our decarbonisation ever since the CSIRO developed more efficient solar panels at a site just down the road from my office. Australia has been at the cutting edge; I know of successful testing of new wave-swell technology that has just been proven in Bass Strait, and I'm sure that there are more exciting breakthroughs to come through. The future is green and the future is exciting. (Time expired) Climate Change 47 13:45 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite I have never felt more ashamed to be Australian! Yesterday, the Prime Minister presented his so-called 'plan' for Australia to reach net zero emissions by 2050, but this plan includes nothing new. It's just another glossy brochure, without modelling and with no real commitment to reducing emissions in the medium term. It's a plan based on technologies that don't even exist! It's just a hollow announcement that isn't underpinned by legislation. Instead, it's driven by a desperate government which is driven by political gain, not by what is right for our future and the future of our planet. What we've seen are dodgy secret deals with the Nationals and a promotion for the member for Hinkler. The boldest thing that the Prime Minister's plan has done is the font. Even Australian farmers want stronger action because they fear the financial penalties for being high-carbon emitters. This pathetic plan represents nine years of woeful inaction. The Morrison-Joyce government is just continuing to run away from its national and global responsibilities on real climate action and it's our children and our environment that will suffer. Global warming is an immediate threat to our planet and our future lifestyles, opportunities and prosperity are at stake, along with the devastating loss of biodiversity. This is not a plan to get to net zero any time soon. It is not a plan, it's just another scam by the Morrison government. Gippsland Electorate: Hospitality Industry 47 13:47 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It is well known that I love Gippsland, but I also love country pubs. So this year I've initiated the 'Great Gippsland Pub Challenge'. Obviously, during this COVID year, the hospitality industry has been impacted severely by restrictions and lockdowns. This local initiative was actually my New Year's resolution: to try to have a meal at every pub in Gippsland during 2021. So this is about putting locals first; it's about visiting more than 50 pubs across my electorate during the course of the year. It's about shopping locally, eating locally and supporting local jobs. I said it was a challenge, and the challenge is to the people of Gippsland. If they join me and visit 11 pubs across Gippsland then they get a free T-shirt: 11 pubs, a free T-shirt. As politicians we're renowned for making up excuses for a whole range of things, but if you get any trouble at home—any arguments at home—about your Great Gippsland Pub Challenge, you're not just going to the pub you're a one-person economic stimulus package for Gippsland! Keep that in mind. It's amazing what people will do for a Gippsland T-shirt—it's amazing what they'll do! Wherever you live, support your local hospitality sector, support your local pubs and, of course, eat and drink responsibly. Paterson Electorate: Maitland Hospital 47 12:48 M 264170 Paterson s SWANSON () (): A new public hospital will open in my electorate of Paterson next year—the new Maitland Hospital—thanks to our brilliant community, which stood shoulder to shoulder with Jenny Aitchison, the state member for Maitland, and I as we ensured that it was a state owned and public hospital that we got. It's going to be equipped with a brand-new, state-of-the-art MRI scanner, which is fantastic news. But that scanner does not have a full Medicare licence, which means, for people who are not inpatients at the hospital, that MRI scans will be expensive—very expensive. MRI technology is amazing, and health professionals are using MRIs more and more to detect, diagnose and treat cancers, heart disease and serious injury. MRIs provide a wealth of medical information that other scans can't without the added concern of exposure to radiation. But they cost between $500 and $1,500, and many people in my electorate are going without groceries for the week or the fortnight just to afford an MRI. People who need them can be out of pocket hundreds of dollars if the MRI they go to does not have a full Medicare licence. Only Mr Hunt, the health minister, can provide this licence. I say to him: open up the licence and give us one for the new Maitland Hospital. Menzies Community Australia Day Awards 48 13:50 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I take this opportunity to remind community groups in my electorate of Menzies that nominations are now open for the 2022 Menzies Community Australia Day Awards. For the past 30 years, I have had the privilege to recognise individuals and organisations that have contributed to our local community with an Australia Day Award. Indeed, more than 1,200 people have been honoured. These include volunteers with the likes of the Doncare opportunity shops—people who have worked serving others in that capacity, sometimes for 25 year or 30 years—leaders of veterans' organisations, workers for social, cultural, ethnic, sporting, charitable and civic groups within the electorate and many others over that period of time. These are people who don't seek recognition for all their voluntary activities but they are the very people who deserve it. So it has been a privilege to honour dozens of them each year on Australia Day. Nomination forms are available from my electorate office. I encourage all the civic and community groups to obtain a nomination form and to make nominations for the Australia Day Awards next year. Nominations close on 3 December. I look forward to being able to gather with so many of the local volunteers on Australia Day to present the awards. Coalition Government: Climate Change 48 13:51 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Well, step up, step up to the not-so-greatest show on earth. It may not be great, but it is a circus, complete with a ringmaster and definitely with clowns. Oh, send in the clowns! The minister for energy and reducing emissions thinks he does a good job. He said so himself. He quotes stats showing emissions are down, but nearly all the reductions happened despite him, thanks to the states, industry, COVID restrictions and, of course, the Labor Party, who oversaw the vast majority of the reductions that he claims. And there's the newly minted cabinet member, the Minister for Resources and Water—'roll up, roll up to solar panels that don't work in the dark; you'll be amazed!' See the Deputy Prime Minister pulling tricks out of his hat, with an agreement to go forward to go forward to somewhere magical—who knows where? And there's the senator in Queensland, the climate denier, who doesn't believe in polls showing that the vast majority of people in Australia want climate action, but he does believe in polling showing that the LNP is lagging behind. He wants to campaign against the Deputy Prime Minister's plan of going forward to somewhere by, presumably, going backwards to nowhere. It's going to be great! And the poor member for Mallee let a slip of the tongue through about wind turbines not working in the dark—a mistake, for sure, but she joined the circus and she can't escape the show and hear the Prime Minister's ringmaster cry, 'The plan, the plan, the plan!' Oh, it will not amaze you at all! Pitchford, Aunty Phyllis 48 13:53 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass [by video link] Today I'm honoured to pay tribute to Tasmanian Aboriginal elder, mentor, poet, author and advocate Aunty Phyllis Pitchford, who passed away last week. Aunty Phyllis, an identical twin, was born in Launceston in 1937, spending some of her childhood at Cape Barren Island before attending school at Launceston's Charles Street Primary and Brooks High School. Aunty Phyllis married and moved to Flinders Island, where she raised five children before moving to North West Tasmania. For more than four decades Aunty Phyllis was a passionate and proud advocate for Aboriginal people, their identity, culture and traditions, with her poetry and writing exploring these themes. Some of her published works include Our Tally, If Only, Sad Memories, The First Xmas I Remember and We're Here, which was on exhibition at the National Museum of Australia. Aunty Phyllis's commitment to her community was recognised with several accolades, including a NAIDOC award in 1992, induction into the Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women in 2008 and in 2013 she received an award recognising elders and leaders in higher education. She was an advocate for Aboriginal and women's rights into her 80s and was hopeful of improved relations between First Nations and non-Indigenous people. She said, 'We're gradually making progress, and I think that is wonderful.' Vale Aunty Phyllis. You have left a lasting legacy for all Tasmanians. Western Sydney: COVID-19 49 13:54 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley If you want to know why the New South Wales Liberals ran such a classist political lockdown, just look at some of the people who were calling the shots in their government, people like former New South Wales minister Pru Goward, who sneeringly wrote last week of the underclass of our region 'They are damaged, lacking in trust and discipline, and highly self-interested,' The gold-standard of contempt, propped up by the Financial Review, showing what the Liberals really think of Western Sydney. I am proud of the spirit and the grit of our people, who are brimming with the stuff that this mob say they admire—aspiration. If one creed defines our region it is this: being there for your mates when the times are tough. Guess what. The New South Wales Liberals and these Liberals here were never around when we needed them most. We wanted a strong public health response with vaccines boosted into the regions. Instead, we got a divided city, police helicopters over our roofs and the federal Liberals sending in the troops. When I asked the Prime Minister if he would send in the ADF to help set up and run vaccination clinics in Mount Druitt, he turned his back on us, flicked the answer to the health minister, the queue fronter, who told us we were at the front of the queue for vaccines but didn't know how to distribute them to us. Sixty per cent of the deaths during the lockdown were in western and south-western Sydney. Many were preventable, so I wonder whether the minister is going to call a royal commission into that great failure of public administration that was the national vaccine rollout. Moncrieff Electorate: Australian International Islamic College 49 13:56 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Last month, I visited the Australian International Islamic College, where I addressed grade 7 and grade 8 students. I was asked by the teacher, Shintaro Koido, and the head of campus, Merima Celahmetovic, to outline my role in the Australian parliament and my views on multiculturalism in this country. After my introduction by Shadi Chami, the students were keen to engage. They asked questions about vaccinations, closing the gap and, most importantly, the things that are most important to our government. My response was: to fight COVID and deliver our free and voluntary vaccine rollout to safeguard them, their community and our country; to strengthen our economy and create more jobs for our recovery; to guarantee health, education and aged-care services for them, for their parents and for their grandparents; to protect them and their families from those in other countries who would seek to undermine our democracy and freedoms; and to care for our country and their future with a plan for net zero by 2050. I promised the children they could see our proud democracy in action when they watch their member stand in parliament and talk freely about their school and their religion. Before I left, I was presented with a gift from Dzenan Mehic and the students. I thank them for their kindness. To all the students and teachers at the Australian International Islamic College: salaam alaikum. Morrison Government 49 13:57 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In a few days time the Prime Minister is going to head to the climate change conference in Scotland. When he gets there there'll be nothing under his kilt, because after eight years of stoking the politics of climate change denial it has suddenly dawned on him that the world is racing ahead of us and that there is an economic price to be paid in lost jobs, lost income and lost trade from their eight years of inaction. Eight years of coalition infighting have led to 20 separate energy policies, none of which have been implemented, because their own MPs blew them up before they got out the gate. We had great expectations that something would be announced yesterday, but we got nothing. Instead, we got a PowerPoint presentation that specifically states they have no new ideas. He calls it 'the Australian way'. I've got a tip for the Prime Minister. If you call a press conference to make a big announcement and don't make one, most Australians will call you a drongo. Everything you need to know about their announcement can be explained by this: they are putting all their energy into telling you what they won't do and nothing into telling you what they will do. (Time expired) Wilson, Mr Alan 49 13:59 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I recently travelled to Lakeland Downs, located a few hundred kilometres north of Cairns, for the official opening of the new sporting oval and facilities. It wasn't just another sporting field or simply another opening, though. This sporting field was named in honour of Cape York legend Alan Wilson. The Alan Wilson Oval is a fitting legacy to a person who has dedicated his life to serving his community in many different capacities. Alan, who now lives in the tablelands, has had many careers including being the NT Police officer. He was, in fact, my cattle station manager at Olive Vale in Cape York— The SPEAKER 00APG Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded in accordance with standing order 43. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change 50 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Morrison-Joyce government's so-called plan for net zero comes with net zero modelling, net zero cost beyond 2030 and net zero legislation? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can confirm that our plan for achieving net zero emissions by 2050, the extensive plan that we've released, will achieve that and achieve that by backing the decisions that Australians are making, particularly across our corporate sector and across our scientific community. It understands the technological changes that will take place and that we will fund and support through the lower emissions technology roadmap and many other initiatives that we've outlined as a government. That is what gets us to net zero by 2050. What doesn't get us there is taxes and mandates and laws telling people what to do and what they can't do on their farms, in their businesses, in their factories and in their homes. That's not what our plan does. The reason Labor doesn't like our plan is because there are no taxes in it. They don't like our plan because there are no mandates telling people what to do and regulations trying to control their lives. That's why Labor doesn't like our plan. Our commitment was set out at the last election: we said we would have a 26 to 28 per cent reduction by 2030. The Labor party said 45 per cent was the emissions reduction that should occur by 2030. The Australian people rejected that, but we note today, on the same logic those opposite often put on those on this side of the House, the Labor Party supported the member for Warringah for a 60 per cent reduction. The SPEAKER 00APG If Leader of the Opposition could resume his seat, I was about to intervene. As I've made clear on numerous occasions, the Prime Minister needs to be relevant to the question. He wasn't asked about alternative policies. I've been lenient in terms of comparing and contrasting, but to be very clear: it's not an opportunity to talk about what was voted on earlier today in terms of alternative policies. Mr MORRISON E3L The building blocks of the plan which we outlined yesterday: the Emissions Reduction Fund, some $2½ billion and the top up of that fund by a further $2 billion; the delivery of Snowy 2.0 at $1.4 million; the Marinus Link and the energy efficiency improvements; the Grid Reliability Fund, some $1 billion on energy generation, storage transmission and grid transition; the hydro industry development plan of $1.2 billion; the carbon capture and storage hubs, which we believe on either side of the House—Labor is voting against carbon capture and storage in this parliament; the ARENA funding of $1.4 billion, continued funding and an expanded mandate; the gas-fired recovery projects; the King review safeguard mechanism; the international technology partnerships of some $565 million, with India being added to those as well as Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and others. These are the initiatives the government is undertaking to get to net zero by 2050. We don't even know what their 2030 target is, and they don't have a plan for any of it. COVID-19: National Plan 50 14:04 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Prime Minister. South Australians, like those in communities across Barker, will soon look forward to their borders reopening, so families can reunite, businesses can ramp up and more people can get back to work. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on how this news demonstrates the Morrison government's national plan is working so we can safely live with the virus and build a stronger Australia? 14:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Barker for his question. As a proud South Australian, he'll be proud of his state today, because today South Australia exceeded 80 per cent on first dose vaccination. Australia has now passed the United Kingdom on first dose vaccinations across whole of population. We have had one of the lowest fatality rates of COVID-19 in the world. We have had one of the strongest economies, particularly amongst advanced economies, going through COVID in the world, and we're on track to have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. Today, we know that the TGA has approved the go-forward on the booster program for our vaccinations. I was talking to Jane Malysiak today. You may remember Jane, of Marayong. She joined me for that first dose of the vaccine. We spoke about getting together again for the booster shot, which we'll be able to have as the plan is rolled out by the minister for health, together with Professor Murphy. We will continue that program. Jane was particularly pleased to hear that within about a week and a half Australia is likely to head to 80 per cent double-dose vaccination around the country, which is in line with what the minister for health and others were saying at the beginning of the year. That program means that we're able to open up. We're able to open up under the national plan, which the member for Barker was asking about. South Australia has joined many other states now in outlining their timetable to open up their state under the national plan, which is being achieved by those vaccination rates continuing to rise around the country. We want to see those rates rise particularly in Queensland and Western Australia. We will continue to work with those states to achieve those outcomes. On Monday, Australians will be taking off again. Australians will be taking off as international restrictions on travel by vaccinated Australian residents and citizens is lifted, and more than 500,000 Australians have already downloaded their international vaccination certificate which will enable them to do that. We will be concluding very, very shortly our arrangements with Singapore, which next month will see particularly students and business travellers who are double vaccinated being the first to come to Australia out of Singapore. And we welcome the announcements made today in Singapore about Australians being able to travel there from 8 November. By the end of the year, I fully anticipate we will be able to see international visitors, including backpackers, who are double vaccinated being able to come back to Australia. I know that'll be great news to the minister for agriculture, in particular, and the many others around the country who rely on them. The national plan is working. Australia's taking off on Monday. Australia has passed the UK in single dose vaccinations. We are moving forward strongly under the national plan. (Time expired) Climate Change 51 14:07 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning, Treasury told Senate estimates it had not modelled the impact of the government's net zero policy. Why didn't the Prime Minister ask Treasury to model the impact? Why won't the Prime Minister release the modelling he claims to have? 14:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The modelling will be released in the next couple of weeks. The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources is the department that does the modelling on this work. It was supported in that work by Treasury. I will ask the Treasurer to update further. 14:08 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Treasury did provide advice to DISER, who undertook the modelling. In fact, they seconded Treasury officials to DISER for the purpose of assisting with that modelling. My department stayed in close contact with DISER throughout that modelling process. With respect to the advice that Treasury provided to DISER, it was about the risk premium of not joining the global consensus around net zero by 2050. It was also about some of those long-running assumptions, like population growth, that were taken into account with respect to the DISER modelling. The point I want to make is that the coalition, in the announcement of our plan to reach net zero by 2050, has put in place a practical and responsible approach, joining a global consensus to take action and recognising we need a global solution to what is a global problem. We have been able to reduce emissions by more than 20 per cent since 2005 and, at the same time, strengthen and grow our economy by around 45 per cent in that time, and we've seen an additional three million people in work. So our commitment is what we have delivered in the past and we will deliver again in the future, which is lowering emissions, strengthening our economy and creating more jobs. Infrastructure: Regional Australia 51 14:10 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is delivering both significant national infrastructure and local projects supporting our communities and regional economies? How will this benefit my home state of Victoria, and is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies? 14:10 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for Nicholls for his question. I note the heritage of the area of Nicholls, which was the home of Black Jack McEwen. Back in 1934 he entered parliament and had a long and distinguished career. Like the member for Nicholls—both at a state and federal level he's had a long and distinguished career. I know and we all hope that the delivery he's achieved for the people of Nicholls continues. It's continued in a range of ways. He has been absolutely instrumental, within the Nationals, in driving for the Inland Rail, which was going through the member for Nicholls' seat and was incredibly important for places such as the stone-fruit produces in the member for Nicholls' seat or the dairy producers in the member for Nicholls' seat or the industry and the benefits they've got from further construction in the member for Nicholls' seat. When it's concluded it will ease congestion, removing 200,000 truck movements each year. It will reduce carbon emissions by 750,000 tonnes each year. One Inland Rail train carries the equivalent of 110 B-double trucks. This is the sort of thing, this is the sort of inspiration, this is the sort of development, which is so important—in achieving a task that we are smart enough to put the investments into, the things that achieve a task and also advance the lives of regional people. The member for Nicholls has not only been a great champion for the big projects; he's also been a great champion for the smaller projects. In the Shepparton city council Maude Street Mall redevelopment, part of the social infrastructure, he was absolutely at the forefront of that, working with Mayor Kim O'Keeffe. He also was instrumental, especially, in the Echuca-Moama Bridge. That was a massive project. With the member for Riverina they drove forward on that massive project—with $320 million for that project. That's not the sort of development you get if you're relying on people who, basically, when you take away Lingiari, only represent about 150,000 square kilometres of this nation while we represent over five million square kilometres of this nation. He talks about alternative policies. This is very important because one of his greatest concerns, I imagine, especially around the stone-fruit growers and the dairy farmers, is if legislation came in, further laws, that restricted their capacity, that imposed on their lives, that restricted their freedoms and their capacity to grow. And there's only side of the chamber talking about bringing in the legislation—in fact, it's the only thing we know they're bringing in; we don't know about anything else. It is the Labor Party that's going to bring in the legislation, because they just don't believe in the ingenuity and they don't believe in the freedoms of the individual. They believe that what resides with the member for Grayndler is the capacity to look after the people in Shepparton with legislation, laws and penalties. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister's time has concluded. Climate Change 52 14:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask, simply: will the Prime Minister now table the modelling for his so-called net zero plan? 14:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The modelling will be released in the next few weeks. I've made that very clear, when we're releasing the modelling. I look forward to the modelling being released. When those opposite ever come up with a plan—they won't even tell us what their 2030 target is before Glasgow. I don't know what they're waiting for! I know what our target is. Our target, that we're taking, is 26 to 28 per cent. Talking about our policies— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I'll just say—yes, it's okay. I know what the question was too, which was very specific and very short, and it doesn't take me long to remember it. Mr MORRISON E3L Twenty-six to 28 per cent is what our target is. That's what we took to the last election, and we're going to beat that target. That's what I'll be telling people in Glasgow, under our nationally determined contributions, that we expect for that to fall by 35 per cent. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. It was a very, very specific question and the Prime Minister is not being relevant to it. It goes to the modelling—will he table it? The SPEAKER 00APG I'll just say that there's an opportunity to refer to the plan briefly but there's not an opportunity—the question was, 'Would the Prime Minister table the modelling for his net zero plan?' The Prime Minister has absolutely answered that question in saying that it will be released publicly in a few weeks time and he has had the opportunity to reflect briefly on the policy, but it's not an opportunity to simply talk about the policy for the next two minutes when he was only asked one question. The Prime Minister. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, yes: Australia has already achieved a 20 per cent reduction in our emissions since 2005, which has also seen our economy grow by 45 per cent over that same period of time. And we are forecasting—projecting—in our nationally determined contribution at Glasgow that we will beat that 26 to 28 per cent target and that our emissions reduction by 2030 will be 35 per cent. That's what we anticipate that to be, based on the work that is being done under the transparent process which the government has been long engaged in. We know, under our plan, that by the end of that forecast period— The SPEAKER 00APG Prime Minister— Mr MORRISON E3L I'm talking about the model! The SPEAKER 00APG No, actually, that wasn't clear. Mr MORRISON E3L It was; I was about to make that point. The SPEAKER 00APG Okay, but if you're talking about the modelling you need to make that clear. That's— Mr MORRISON E3L Yes. And that shows that under our plan GDP is up by 1.59 per cent. Under our plan, it's about $2,000 per person better off per year. Under our plan, we are seeing a 5.6 per cent increase in investment. That's what our plan is doing. We've looked at that and we've wrestled with these issues; we've worked through these issues and we want to be assured that these outcomes can be achieved, particularly for rural and regional Australia. We've done the work to satisfy ourselves on that and we've done the work to satisfy ourselves that we can reach net zero by 2050, grow our economy and support rural and regional economies. We're confident about that, that's why we're taking it forward. The Labor Party isn't confident about anything, they don't even have a target— The SPEAKER 00APG No, this is not an opportunity to talk about alternative policies. Economy 53 14:17 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy [by video link] My question is to the Treasurer. In 30 years per capita net national income has risen by only 130 per cent, and yet housing and motor vehicle prices have risen by over 600 per cent and food by over 230 per cent. Affordable living is now beyond many Australians. Wouldn't the deregulation of the building codes and land subdivisions, along with capping down to 100 per cent the current unconscionable farm-gate-to-family mark-up of 300 per cent on food stop 30 per cent of our families collapsing into poverty? 14:18 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I understand that he's talking about the cost of living, and it is true that a lot of Australians are doing it tough right now—particularly as a consequence of the largest economic shock since the Great Depression. But I can inform the member and, indeed, the House, that household disposable income is up 5.8 per cent since the start of the pandemic. This is because we, as a government, have put around $300 billion of support into the economy—direct economic support for families and for businesses. In the budget this year I announced a number of other measures that go to the heart of the cost of living. Indeed, since the pandemic we have cut taxes by about $24 billion for Australians. But in the budget we had $9.7 billion in childcare support and we had $9 billion for an additional support for jobseekers, with the single largest increase since 1986. We had $9 billion for homelessness and for housing, with programs like HomeBuilder, and also Commonwealth Rent Assistance, which is so important. These programs are supporting the economy and supporting households who, as the member points out, are doing it very tough. But we can only invest in these measures when we have a strong economy. I can tell the House that Australia is only one of nine countries in the world to have a AAA credit rating from the three leading credit-rating agencies. We know that, when we came to government, unemployment was at 5.7 per cent. Today it's 4.6 per cent, with unemployment having gone below five per cent for the first time in a decade. I say to the honourable member: we, as a government, are committed to driving down taxes, to put more money into people's pockets and to try to ease the cost of living with the investments that we are making in the energy sector, which has seen energy prices come down by around 10 per cent, from their peak. So whether it's child care, housing, jobseeker support for those who are out of work or our energy investments, we are focused on driving down the cost of living for all Australians. Economy 54 14:20 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert [by video link] My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Morrison government's proven record of delivering tax cuts to businesses and families strengthening our economic recovery and helping to drive unemployment to its lowest level in a decade, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 14:20 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Herbert. I thank him for his service to Australia in the Australian Defence Force. He is somebody who was injured in Afghanistan, someone who has worn the uniform with pride and someone who represents Australia largest garrison city, Townsville, and supports our veterans. We say thank you to the member for Herbert. I thank him for this question. He recognises that this side of the House, the coalition—Liberals and Nationals—are committed to creating more jobs and driving down taxes. When we came to government, unemployment was 5.7 per cent. Today it's 4.6 per cent, and 1.4 million additional jobs have been created since we came to government. When it comes to lower taxes, we have legislated through the parliament around $300 billion of income tax cuts. That means that, if you're a teacher in Townsville on $60,000, you are paying $6,480 less tax under our government as a result of the measures that we have passed on this side of the House. If you're a small business with a turnover of less than $50 million, you've seen your tax come down to 25 per cent, from 30 per cent. Immediate expensing and the loss carry-back measures have seen an increase in investment across the country. In terms of machinery and equipment investment, we've seen about a 20 per cent increase as a result of the business investment incentives that we have supported on this side of the House. So we're delivering lower taxes, and we're delivering more jobs. On top of that, we're investing in infrastructure—in programs like Snowy 2.0, which is going to support around 5,000 jobs; in programs like the Western Sydney airport, which will support around 11,000 jobs; and in other programs, like the Inland Rail, which will support more than 20,000 jobs. They are some very important infrastructure projects, which are creating jobs and driving up productivity. I'm asked if there are any other alternative policies to our approach to create more jobs and lower taxes. We know that those opposite support higher taxes, because they went to the last election with $387 billion of higher taxes. The member for McMahon told Australians, 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for us,' and they took him literally. Now we know the member for Rankin is cooking up a tax on family businesses—300,000 of them. It's a $27 billion tax on family businesses that will leave businesses worse off as a result of Labor's addiction to higher taxes. We on this side of the House are committed to creating more jobs and lowering taxes for all Australians. Climate Change 54 14:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question to the Prime Minister. What is the reason he says he's releasing the modelling in a few weeks rather than now? Don't Australians deserve the right to see it? 14:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Of course, we'll be fully transparent about the policies, as we have been. We will release that modelling in the next few weeks. That's exactly what we'll do. COVID-19: Vaccination 55 14:24 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on Australia's vaccine program, including how booster vaccines will continue to protect Australian lives and livelihoods? 14:24 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Moncrieff. I had the privilege of visiting with her the TriCare aged-care facility at Mermaid Beach, and, not that long before, they had had a positive case amongst one of their groundskeepers. All of the staff were doing their best, and all of the residents had been offered and given double vaccination, for everyone who was willing to receive it. That provided very important protection at a very important time. That threat, which we've seen around the world, continues—again, over 400,000 cases in the last 24 hours worldwide of COVID-19 and sadly 8½ thousand lives lost. We are closing, very sadly, on more than five million lives lost worldwide officially, with the real rate likely to be far higher than that. Against that background, one of the things that we have sought to do is to ensure that we have as many Australians vaccinated as possible. What we're seeing now is that across the country we are on the cusp of an 87½ per cent first dose and a 75 per cent second dose rate. That second dose rate is climbing, and the first dose rate is continuing to increase around the country. South Australia, as the Prime Minister has said, has passed the 80 per cent first dose rate today. Other states are closing on it, and already we have the ACT, New South Wales and Victoria with more than 90 per cent of first doses. Around the country in particular, we're now at 34.8 million doses around Australia, and what that means is that there were just over a million Australians to come forward to have their second doses to achieve that 80 per cent national mark. So we're on track and we're achieving that. And, as General Frewen said on Sunday, there's enough vaccine in the country to ensure that every person who seeks to be vaccinated, with a first or second, has that opportunity. Today, the TGA has approved a booster shot, a third dose, for those once they've reached six months or more. That's available, and it will be available to all those who seek it. That vaccine is ready, and what that means is that we will have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, one of the most recently vaccinated populations and be one of the earliest countries in the world to have a whole-of-population booster program, subject to the final advice by ATAGI. All of these things are coming together to provide protection for Australians, to give us some of the highest protection in the world, but also to allow that road map. And that road map makes for, on 1 November, Australians being able to regain their freedoms and— (Time expired) Climate Change: Regional Australia 55 14:27 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers on net zero in this House. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm he signed up to net zero without seeing any Treasury modelling on the impact on regional Australia? 14:28 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for his question. Just while I've been sitting back there, in regard to this plan, I'm very encouraged by some of it, because the long-term prospects for Australia's coal and gas sectors will depend on preference from customers—I understand that. And the DISER modelling, which is on the next page—I just want to go through it: coal, metallurgical, global ranking No. 1; coal thermal, global ranking No. 2; LNG, global ranking No. 2; iron ore, No. 1; uranium, No. 1; lithium, No. 1; zinc, No. 2; and copper, No. 3. This is great. And I've just had a look at it, for the honourable member—the source: 'Source: DISER, Resources and Energy Quarterly September 2021'. This modelling—I'm very happy. I believe that people at DISER are probably proficient enough, probably a little bit better than me in determining those incredible rankings. I'm happy we've got them. I'm very encouraged. By making sure that, in working with my National Party colleagues, we talk about that we will remain one of the world's biggest producers and exporters of liquefied natural gas. This is a great outcome. It talks about the ongoing use of coal. In fact, it talks about, I think, nearly a six per cent decline over the near future, but that belies the fact that currently we're exporting more coal at a higher price than we ever have before. The modelling seems pretty good. Climate Change 56 14:30 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom My question is to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emission Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how our plan for net zero by 2050 will ensure that we strengthen our industries and create jobs as we bring down our emissions? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:30 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Groom for his question and for his continued support for a technology-led approach to reducing emissions. As the member for the area in and around Toowoomba, he represents one of the great energy and agricultural hubs of the world, and he, like so many constituents, understands that a technology-led approach to reducing emissions, using technologies like hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and regenerating our soils, is the key to maintaining a strong economy and strengthening our economy and bringing down emissions at the same time. That's our plan; we've laid it out. Few countries in the world have—and those opposite certainly haven't. It's a plan that focuses on doing things the Australian way. It builds on the policies and initiatives that we have been announcing over a long period of time, including in recent months. As a result of those policies and initiatives, emissions are more than 20 per cent down since 2005. That's at a time when the economy has grown by 45 per cent. And get this: product exports during that time, when emissions have come down by 28 per cent, have grown by more than 200 per cent. That's success. That's what works, and our plan is about using what works. It respects the choices of Australian households and businesses, which is so crucial, and their right to choose—the right of farmers to choose how they want to farm and the right of Australians to choose the vehicles they want to drive and the food they want to eat. It's a plan for prosperity and for the regions to excel. But I am asked about alternatives. The alternative is those opposite—who, seven times, have voted against a technology-led approach. The Leader of the Opposition describes it as absurd. But, worse, time after time, they have refused to tell Australians what their 2030 target is. But today they came into this place and they voted for a 60 per cent emissions reduction target. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TAYLOR 231027 It's true. The Leader of the Opposition described the member for Maribyrnong's target of 45 per cent as a mistake. What no-one realised is that he is in favour of a 60 per cent target. He needs to explain which industries will be destroyed, which cattle are going to go, which mines are being closed, which industry is going to disappear and which regions are going to be destroyed. Those opposite need to explain all of that. We have laid out our plan. It's technology led. It is for the prosperity of Australia and Australians, and it respects the choices of all Australians. Climate Change: Regional Australia 56 14:33 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is again to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answer. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the document that he was quoting from is not the modelling document? So I ask again: can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he signed up to net zero without seeing the Treasury modelling on the impact on regional Australia? 14:34 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member once again for their question. Throughout the document it talks about the DISER modelling. I imagine that DISER know what they are doing. I suspect they might know more than the honourable member himself. I don't know; maybe he is an expert in linear regression analysis and maybe he can give us a little speech on the Newton-Raphson theory and go through a whole range of his acumen in this area. But I suspect—and I am going way out on a limb here—that DISER knows more than he does. So I'm very encouraged. Of course we went through it. We diligently went through a full process of making sure that we went into bat for regional Australia. The one thing we were looking for was to make sure there was no legislation like what you're going to bring forward and legislate out the workers in the Hunter Valley and legislate out the workers in Central Queensland and legislate out the jobs from Newcastle and legislate out the towns of Muster Brook and Singleton. It's very important that we— Honourable members interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d I knew that would get under your skin. I knew that! The SPEAKER 00APG I hadn't even asked him to resume his seat! Have you finished? Mr JOYCE e5d No, I can go on. I thought he was coming up to say g'day and I didn't want to say g'day to him, so I just took a break for a second. The SPEAKER 00APG Maybe you can do that outside the House. Mr JOYCE e5d I'll take your advice, Mr Speaker. I was looking at this. It says great Australian lithium exports could grow from $1 billion in 2020 to $10 billion by 2050. That's $34 billion a year. That's a good idea, and the Prime Minister and myself—are you coming up this time to say no? The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister can resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance: the question goes to the modelling document. It's in two parts, both refer to the modelling document, and the Deputy Prime Minister is not referring to it at any point. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister was asked about his previous answer about that document and a separate modelling document that the Prime Minister said will be released in the next couple of weeks. I've allowed him to talk about the modelling he's seen, but he really needs to come back to the question or wrap up his answer. Mr JOYCE e5d It is not exceptional that you trust competent modelling agencies. It's not exceptional that you think that DISER is competent at their job, that McKinsey is competent at their job, that departmental officials didn't just walk off the street. Unless he's got the expert knowledge, which I presume the member for Watson doesn't have, then he would be better to rely on the people who are experts on it, and those are the people such as DISER. Climate Change 57 14:37 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. Would the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is investing in the technology we need to reduce emissions both here and around the world? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:37 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Curtin for her question. As a former vice-chancellor and researcher, she knows the power of technology to solve hard problems in Australia and around the world. She knows that a technology-led approach is the right way to get to net zero by 2050 in a way that reconciles a strong economy, job creation and investment with bringing down emissions, and she trusts the Australian people that, when low emission technologies come to cost competitiveness, they deploy them. And they're doing exactly that in her electorate, where there are 15,000 households with solar cells on their roofs. I should say that 90 per cent of solar cells around the world have Australian technology in them. We've shaped that technology and we've played an extraordinary role in bringing down emissions not just here in Australia but around the world. We, as Australians, trust our colleagues, our fellow Australians, to make the choices that are right for them about the vehicles they drive, the food they eat, the electricity they buy, and we know that Australians will adopt low emissions technologies when they make sense and when they're cost competitive. That's why we're focused on reducing the cost of those technologies, to bring them to a point where Australians deploy them, because it's in their interests. That includes technologies like carbon capture and storage. We've developed an Emissions Reduction Fund methodology, which we've announced in recent months, so that we can create an abatement from new carbon capture projects. We've committed $250 million to carbon capture and storage hubs. We know that will provide up to 1,500 jobs, nearly all of which will be in regional areas. But it's not just us. Joe Biden, the US President, has said that the US will double-down on carbon capture and storage. The IPCC and the IEA have said that this is a critical technology for the world to meet net zero goals. The UK is investing a billion dollars in carbon capture and storage, which will reduce their emissions by 20 to 30 million tonnes per annum. I am asked about alternatives. The fact is that those opposite rule out technologies—they rule them out—like carbon capture and storage. They have voted time and time again against technologies like these. We know why. It's because their real target is not net zero; it's zero. They want to see industries like agriculture, manufacturing and mining wiped out. No fossil fuels—they want them all gone. They want to see these industries wiped out. That's not the Australian way. We will reconcile, right across regional Australia and the rest of Australia, a strong economy with emissions reduction. Climate Change 58 14:40 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. Why won't the Prime Minister legislate net zero by 2050? Is it because he is worried about members of his own government crossing the floor? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook No. Our plan backs in what Australians are doing. We have met and beaten our Kyoto targets. They weren't legislated. We are going to meet and beat our Paris targets that we set at 26 to 28 per cent. We had this discussion at the last election. Those opposite said they didn't believe that our plans would meet that target. They said, 'It won't happen'. Other commentators said it wouldn't happen. They said the same thing about our 2020 targets. They made all the same criticisms and all the same noise that they're making today about our plans for 2050. But, guess what? We met 2020. There aren't that many countries that can say that, because they just didn't meet it. We beat it by almost a full year of emissions by Australia. We beat that target in 2020. Regarding 2030, when we go to Glasgow we will be able to say that our projections, which are included in our nationally determined contribution, will see emissions reduced, we expect, by 35 per cent by 2030. Australians know what our policies are, they know what they're designed to achieve, they know what they have met, they know how those targets have been beaten and they know how we plan to get there—with technologies which we know will secure the outcomes that we are seeking to achieve. Australians, of course, want us to achieve net zero by 2050, but they don't want a blank cheque, they don't want to be signed up to a blank cheque, which is what the Labor party want to do with their legislation. Australians don't want the mandates to come down and be told what to do on their farm, in their business, in their home or in their car. They want to be trusted. We trust Australians to be able to go forward and do these things, just like we trusted them to go out and get vaccinated. The Leader of the Opposition thought they had to be bribed to do that. We believe in the integrity of Australians and their commitment to do what's right by Australia. We don't think they need to be mandated. We don't think they need those sorts of things, because we know they want to achieve it and we know that's true, because we've already seen emissions fall by over 20 per cent on 2005 levels, and at the same time our economy has grown by 45 per cent. We've got a million people back in jobs in manufacturing in this country. Under Labor, one in eight jobs in manufacturing—gone. On electricity prices, under our government, on the latest inflation figures, they've gone up by three per cent since we were elected. Under Labor, they went up by 101 per cent. Climate Change: Agriculture 58 14:44 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Northern Australia. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government's technology driven approach to reducing emissions, which includes its significant investment in protecting and improving Australia's ancient soils, will ensure our agriculture industry can continue to grow and thrive? 14:44 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Cowper for his question. He represents a very rich agricultural region, and he understands the important role that agriculture will play not just in this technology road map for reducing emissions but in what it has already achieved. The agriculture and land sector has reduced emissions by over 55 per cent since 2005, and we've increased agricultural production from $36 billion to over $73 billion over that same period. We've done that through investing in technology and, more importantly, through our soils. Ninety-five per cent of what we produce in the agricultural sector comes from the soils. There is a symbiotic relationship between our soils and reducing carbon, because the more carbon we can put into our soils the better will be the agricultural produce that we produce. So we are putting investments through our National Soil Strategy to make sure we can have more carbon abatement through our soils and increase agricultural production. That is common sense. That is what this plan is about. We are doing that with specific programs like $67 million to work with councils to ensure that household organic waste and food waste will go into compost, to put that carbon back into the soil to produce better crops, with better protein, just from using simple modes of working with councils and making sure we can use that carbon. We're also working with $20 million in a science challenge to ensure that we close gaps in knowledge and understanding of our soils and how they can be used better to get better productivity. We have the best minds to be able to achieve that. There's $120 million for working with farmers to incentivise them to do more soils tests and also to use the data that came out of their previous soils tests to build a greater database not just on carbon abatement but also on the productivity of their land. There is $54 million to have boots on the ground, extension officers, working through that data with farmers to be able to understand what their management practices should look like. There's also $40 million for our Soil CRC, which is ensuring that the collection of this data is collaborative and that the data is used across sectors to ensure that the productivity and profitability of farmers and the abatement of that carbon work to our farmers' advantage but also to reduce our emissions. Through the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, we're also working with over $36 million in the soil challenge to crack the code of reducing the cost of a soil carbon test, bringing it down from over $30 a hectare to $3 a hectare. This will incentivise farmers to take advantage of the more than 90 million hectares of agricultural production area, on which they can not only produce better crops, with better protein, but also abate carbon and play an integral part in helping us meet our international commitments. That has the potential to abate carbon by nearly 90 million tonnes a year, going a long way to living up to our international commitments. This is a commonsense Australian way of solving an international problem and increasing Australian agricultural productivity along the way. Climate Change 59 14:47 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that nearly a third of the emissions reductions he hopes to claim for his policy of net zero by 2050 come from technological innovations that don't exist yet and global technology trends which are out of Australia's control? 14:48 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can confirm that 15 per cent of the emissions reductions that come as a result of the government's plan will be from global technology trends. I confirm that it includes 20 per cent reductions that have already occurred. Our policies have already seen a 20 per cent reduction in emissions, which is greater than the United States, the OECD average, Japan, Canada and New Zealand. Australia's actions and outcomes on reducing emissions speak far louder than the claims and the words of others. I can confirm that 40 per cent of those reductions come from the Technology Investment Roadmap technologies, which go to clean hydrogen and getting that under $2 a kilo; ultralow-cost solar, at under $15 per megawatt hour; getting energy storage under $100 per megawatt hour; getting low-emission steel and aluminium steel production under $700 per ton and aluminium under $2,200 per tonne; and getting carbon capture and storage, something opposed by the Labor Party, down to under $20 per tonne of CO2. Mr MORRISON E3L The Leader of the Opposition interjects. He says it's not true. Well, if that's not true, why is the Labor Party voting against it in the Senate? The 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Yes, on direct relevance— Mr Albanese R36 You abolished the fund. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition! The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition, I'm trying to hear the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance—the question goes to two parts of that document. He's not referring to either of them at the moment. It goes to the global technology trends part of it and the technological innovations that don't exist yet. He's now going to other sections, and that's where he's been spending most of his answer. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister's been referring to a number of things in the answer. The question asked him to confirm those two things. So, in the time available, I'm just going to ask the Prime Minister to come back to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L I was outlining the entire emissions reduction, which those other two factors sit within the context of. I said 40 per cent is on those technologies we're already funding and supporting through the lower emissions technology road map. There is 10 to 20 per cent on international and domestic offsets, and there is up to 15 per cent on further technology breakthroughs. And I say to the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party, what have they got against technology? Why do they not have confidence that, in the next 30 years, in the world today, we will not see technology breakthroughs which will ensure that we'll be able to close the gap? If that's the case, they should never use one of these, because they don't believe they exist! An iPhone would never have existed if it was based on the assumptions of the Leader of the Opposition. He wouldn't have thought any of these things would happen. We wouldn't have had a COVID vaccine because it hadn't been developed two years ago, not even one year ago—or not much more than one year ago. So, yes, it's true. I have more confidence in technological innovation and science than I do in taxes and regulations put on the Australian people by the Labor Party. Cybersafety 60 14:51 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, representing the Attorney-General. Will the minister please inform the House how the Morrison government's strong record on online safety will be further supported through online privacy reforms? 14:52 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the member for Forde, who's got a longstanding commitment to keeping Australians safe—safe online as well as when they interact in the physical town square. He's determined, as all on this side of the House are determined, that people should be safe when they interact in the digital town square as well. Just this week we have seen further progress by this government in this important policy area, with the release of an exposure draft designed to enable the creation of a binding online privacy code for social media services, data brokers and other large online platforms. This is a great piece of work from the Attorney-General and the assistant minister to the Prime Minister for mental health. It's designed to provide Australians with more transparency, and more control over how their personal information is being handled. Critically, what's proposed under this code is that social media platforms operating in Australia will be required to take all reasonable steps to verify the age of users and to take all reasonable steps to verify parental or guardian consent for children under 16 years, and it will require that the handling of children's personal information on their platforms is fair and reasonable, with the best interests of the child being the primary consideration. The online privacy code is the next step in the Morrison government's cohesive and comprehensive plan to keep Australians safe online. It's the next building block in our defences. It builds on our tough, new Online Safety Act. It builds on our strong, new industry codes to protect Australians against abhorrent and violent content. It builds on new powers to order tech companies to report on how they're keeping people safe, and to issue hefty fines of up to $550,000 to companies if they don't respond. It builds on our successful cyberbullying scheme for children. It builds on the 25,000 times our school toolkits have been downloaded. It builds on professional teacher programs that have reached 5,300 educators. It builds on our world-first adult-cyberabuse scheme. It builds on the $15 million we've provided for extra investigators to support victims of abuse. It builds on our new powers for the eSafety Commissioner to unmask anonymous trolls. It builds on take-down powers for intimate images shared online without consent. It builds on a $125 million funding commitment to the eSafety Commissioner over the next four years. It builds on our commitment to develop technology to support women in finding intimate images put up without their authority in the darkest places of the web. It builds on our achievement of reaching one million senior Australians through our Be Connected program. The Morrison government is strongly committed to keeping Australians safe online and has a whole series of practical measures to do that. Climate Change 61 14:55 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm he committed $13 million of taxpayers' money to advertising his climate policy before he even had one? Can the Prime Minister confirm that the only jobs created by his policy so far are for the minister for resources and advertising executives? Why is it always about spin and never about substance from this Prime Minister? 14:55 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The member's question and the presumptions in it are false. Child Safety 61 14:56 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan [by video link] My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is backing our law enforcement agencies to tackle the evil crime of child abuse and make our community safer? 14:56 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for his question, and I recognise the significant work he has done as chair of both the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and the parliamentary friends of ACCCE group. Nothing is more important than the safety and security of our children. The coalition government has always been serious about tackling this insidious crime. This morning we launched our country's first National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse. This new strategy will further focus our work over the next decade. It includes over $131 million to resource our law enforcement efforts, which build on our record investment to establish the world-leading Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. Sadly, last year alone the centre received over 22,000 reports of child sexual exploitation; that's an average of over 60 a day. And we all know that not every instance will be reported. That is a terrible statistic that we must all work hard to make sure we can reduce. Clearly, with the COVID pandemic, there have been more opportunities for children to be online and opportunities for predators to be out there grooming children. This is something that this government is very committed to doing its best to stamp out, and we are doing that by giving police and law enforcement agencies some pretty tough new powers. This Friday is Day for Daniel, Australia's largest child safety education and awareness day. I pay tribute to the work of Bruce and Denise Morcombe, who I met with recently. They work tirelessly to make our community safer, in memory of their son. Their work is greatly appreciated by both ACCCE and the AFP, and I know that many Australians right around the country will support Day for Daniel on Friday. The AFP and federal agencies will always be ready to support the work of state police forces when it comes to crimes against children. They are currently doing that in the case of four-year-old Cleo Smith, who disappeared from a campsite in Western Australia. Our thoughts are with the family, and I can assure them that the advanced capabilities of federal law enforcement are being deployed to aid local efforts to find Cleo. Australians can be certain we will continue to equip our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with the tools and resources they need to combat this very serious crime, especially crimes against children. 14:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—I associate the Labor Party with the comments of the minister and encourage people to participate in Day for Daniel. I congratulate all those involved in that day. Along with the rest of the House and the rest of Australia, we all want to see young Cleo found safely. Electric Vehicles 61 14:59 Ms WE 264121 Lilley LLS () (): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister support Labor's plan to cut taxes on electric vehicles, making them cheaper for Australian families? 15:00 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I am asked about our policy on electric vehicles. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! The minister was about six seconds in. Can I just listen to him for a sec? Mr TAYLOR 231027 Our policy is to facilitate the choices of all Australians. With all technologies, as the cost comes down, they get deployed—and we encourage the global manufacturers of electric vehicles to keep driving those costs down. Our policy is focused on making sure that the infrastructure is in place to support the choices of all Australians. We are making significant investment in that infrastructure. Indeed, through round 1 of the Future Fuels Fund we are providing $25 million to ARENA to support more than 400 new charging stations. We are facilitating the choice of Australians. Those opposite think they know better. They want to make the choices for Australians. Child Safety 62 15:01 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass [by video link] My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, launched today by the Prime Minister with the support of every state and territory leader? 15:01 Mr MO 265931 Tangney RTON (—) (): I thank the member for Bass for her important and strong advocacy on these issues. As someone who can only imagine the lasting impact of these heinous crimes against children, I've been rocked with what I've learnt as the minister responsible for the National Office for Child Safety. That is why, appropriately, I acknowledge victim-survivors, their advocates, their families and those who work to support them. I also acknowledge Steve Irons, my predecessor, who did much of the work in this role. Sadly, the rate of child sexual abuse is increasing. Between 2014 and 2019 the number of recorded sexual assaults against children or young people increased by 21 per cent. That's from 13,353 to 16,140. Reports of online child sexual abuse have increased as well. During the COVID-19 lockdown last year that increased by 122 per cent. Sadly the reach of Australian perpetrators also extends overseas. We have no greater responsibility as a government than to protect our children and to ensure their safety. Today the Prime Minister and I launched the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse. We announced $307.5 million for its initial implementation. This is over and above the commitments of the individual states and territories for them to fulfil their responsibilities. The national strategy is a 10-year whole-of-nation framework for coordinating an approach to preventing and responding to child sexual abuse. It has the backing of all state and territory leaders. It aims to reduce the risk, extent and impact of child sexual abuse and related harms in Australia. There are five key themes: awareness raising; education and building child-safe cultures; supporting and empowering victims and survivors; enhancing national approaches to children with harmful sexual behaviours; offender prevention and intervention; and improving the evidence base. This strategy responds to the 100 royal commission recommendations and goes further. Since 2018 the National Office for Child Safety has been consulting extensively to develop a strategy. These consultations built on the royal commission findings and the experience of victims and survivors. The bulk of the consultations in relation to this strategy occurred between 2018 and 2020. Consultations throughout 2021 focused heavily on how government and non-government agencies would implement the finalising of the strategy's vision and objectives. The national strategy recognises that every child and young person has the right to be protected and to be safe from sexual abuse. It recognises that those who have experienced child sexual abuse are still dealing with the impacts. It recognises that everyone has a role to play to respond to and to prevent child sexual abuse. Climate Change 62 15:04 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers on net zero in this House. Given the Deputy Prime Minister has described climate change as 'just the biggest scam that this nation has ever seen concocted', what can we expect the Deputy Prime Minister to say about Glasgow and net zero when he becomes Acting Prime Minister tomorrow night? 15:05 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for her question. I must admit I'd have to go a long way back to find that quote, but I'm happy for you to provide it to me. What is really important is that when the Prime Minister goes to Glasgow he'll be able to point out clearly that we will not be legislating any of the people in the member's electorate of Eden Monaro out of a job. We won't be doing that. We'll be making sure that the dairy farmers in Eden-Monaro are not legislated out by a form of legislation that your side of the House won't even tell us about. You won't tell us about your legislation, so I presume that the people in Eden-Monaro, the dairy farmers, will be concerned that the Labor Party legislation may go towards such things as methane emissions from the dairy herd. It would be a big concern to the people of Bega to know of the prospect of legislation that goes into the heart of every coffee shop up and down Bega. They could have the expectation of a reduction in farming income for the people of Bega. That has been proposed by the party that you are a member of. We'll be saying quite clearly that we'll make sure that there is no legislation that imposes on the freedoms and that takes the place of the ingenuity that always resides in people who have taken us to a point where we have met and beaten every target that we have had before us. When the Prime Minister goes to Glasgow, he will also know that the coalition is 100 per cent behind the plan that he has brought forward. We will also say, because I was looking through it, in appendix 6 it was talking about the expansion of uranium mining and how important that industry is. We will be standing behind that. I know—actually, I don't know whether the Labor Party support, actually, you don't really support the coal mining industry and you don't really support the mining industry. I would say that other people who will be watching in Glasgow will be very concerned about the legislation that brings in the laws that outlaw the prospect of regional Australia. They will be very concerned if that was ever to be brought about by the legislation that your side of the House proposes. COVID-19 63 15:07 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee My question is to the Minister for Regional Health. Will the minister update the house on the progress of the Morrison-Joyce government's COVID-19 vaccine rollout in regional, rural and remote Australia? 15:07 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I thank the member for Mallee for that question and compliment her both on her pre-parliamentary career as a social worker and on setting up the Zoe Support charity. She has been a dogged defender of the vaccine restrictions and cross-border problems that her constituents have had and has developed border bubble policies and the like. The seat of Mallee is a massive electorate, like many in Australia. It is the size of Ireland. Like other places in regional Australia, it had multiple primary-care sites—90 in total—along with the help of the Flying Doctor Service, the Australian Medical Assistance Teams and the defence vaccine outreach teams to get comparable rates, and areas in her electorate have a rate of over 90 per cent first doses in some areas. But in the last week, 4,000 people in Mildura, the heart of Mallee, got themselves vaccinated, so the rate of completed doses has gone up to 73 per cent. In the outbreak in both western New South Wales and in northern Victoria, rapid antigen tests have been a really helpful bit of technology to rapidly isolate and get answers in these regional far-flung places. I can confirm to the member and to other members from regional Australia that I've been in touch with the major retailers—Coles, Woolies, IGA and the Pharmacy Guild—and they have assured me that regional Australia will be getting rapid antigen tests which people can use at home or in the workplace without a medical professional at the same time as the rest of Australia does. Unfortunately, in some areas of regional Australia the vaccination rate amongst some of the more remote communities with high numbers of Indigenous residents hasn't been as good. There's a lag in them catching up, but just in this last little period—in the last week or so—3.9 per cent of the Indigenous population that hadn't been vaccinated have. So the message is that if you're not vaccinated yet it's never too late. Going forward, you'll be able to get a booster dose or, if you haven't been vaccinated, you can get it from your GP, or your pharmacy or one of the hubs. And there are rapid antigen tests coming to help manage stuff. Regional Australia: you're well looked after as we open up and get our lives back. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Presentation 63 15:11 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. STATEMENTS 64 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 64 15:11 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons [by video link] Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 I do. The SPEAKER 00APG You may proceed. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Thank you, Mr Speaker. In yesterday's MPI the member for Lyne accused myself and other members of hypocrisy for criticising the BBRF while welcoming projects in our own electorates. My criticism went to the fact that 90 per cent of the grant money under the scheme went to coalition seats. That's a fact illustrated by my seat receiving $4 million and Mallee receiving $38 million, which is about on point. So far from hypocrisy, it's simply fact and truth. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 64 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Climate Change 64 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The importance of legislating net zero emissions by 2050. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This week we've seen the Seinfeld policy launch: all the build-up and then it was all about nothing. No new net zero policy, net zero legislation, net zero modelling or net zero unity from those opposite. They left it to the last possible minute to outline a scam that leaves everything to the last possible minute. It's out on the never-never because this government will never, ever take climate change seriously. After all of the build-up we just got a glossy brochure. When launching it, they said the word 'plan' 94 times—94! Well, saying it doesn't make it true. The fact is that the Prime Minister isn't known as 'Scotty from marketing' for nothing, because that is what we saw. The brochure mentions the word 'modelling' 44 times but doesn't produce any. Maybe it's in a blind trust? Those opposite are simply not fair dinkum. They're led by a Prime Minister who said that electric vehicles would end the weekend, who said that batteries for renewables were as useful as the Big Banana or the Big Prawn and who said that the Renewable Energy Target was 'nuts'. He says that they're going to reach a 35 per cent reduction by 2030, but that they can't change the Abbott target of 26 to 28 because that would be different from the last election. But at the last election they opposed net zero by 2050, the whole basis of what this has allegedly been about. When Australia was burning down, during the Black Summer, they were apoplectic at the idea that there was a connection between the bushfires, and the drought that came beforehand, and climate change. To talk about that was 'woke inner city'. But now that the Prime Minister wants to strut across the global stage in Glasgow, they say, 'Oh, no, net zero by 2050. With all this new technology, it's just going to happen.' Australia can spot a fraud from a long way away, and they're onto the marketing guy. But it gets worse. When he jets out, as of tomorrow, Barnaby Joyce will be the acting Prime Minister of Australia, the bloke who knocked off Michael McCormack, a good man, in order to strongly oppose net zero. That was the whole platform of why the coup happened! He didn't support it but it's National Party policy, apparently, anyway. He still doesn't support it, like a majority of National Party cabinet ministers. This is what he said when he became the leader, talking in the third person as sometimes people with particular afflictions do: The likelihood of Joyce getting endorsement from his party room to agree to net zero is zero. That's where the net zero lies. That's what he said. He doesn't even support it. He described climate change as a scam. And remember the bizarre video in the paddock, shouting at clouds, with the cows all around him, saying, 'I just don't want the government in my life'? But he said he doesn't mind the Deputy Prime Minister's pay. He doesn't mind a making a career out of taxpayer directly funds. What we know from the announcement yesterday is: (1) they can produce glossy documents and (2) there are two big changes. One change is that Keith Pitt, the minister for resources, is now in the cabinet. This is a guy who said that solar and wind don't work at night. This is a guy who gets a shock every time he turns the tap and water comes out, because it isn't raining outside. He doesn't get the whole idea about storage of renewables and what's happened. He just doesn't get it. That was the one change, the one job, we know occurred. The other change is a Productivity Commission review. Every five years they're going to have a look at it, to see how it's going. But the Deputy Prime Minister said this: 'I use them when I run out of toilet paper.' That's what he had to say about Productivity Commission reports. That's how seriously he takes them. That's all that we know came out of this. Barnaby Joyce is the whoopee cushion of Australian politics. You know you shouldn't laugh when you hear him make noise, but somehow you just kind of have to. And as we sit here in question time, listening to the human whoopee cushion opposite, you've just got to have a chuckle. We need subtitles up on the screen to explain it. The Nationals have become a clown show and he is the perfect figurehead. He is trying to turn the word 'legislation' into a pejorative term. Someone should tell him that's what parliament does! The debates that we have in parliament are about legislation, and they are about laws, but he is trying to turn it into a pejorative term. The newsflash for him is: that's what parliaments do. But there's a second newsflash: investors need certainty, going forward. That's why you have legislation, so you can go forward. When Dennis Denuto in The Castle spoke about laws being about the vibe, it was satire. They think it was a documentary. They just don't get it at all. We on this side, of course, have had a net zero by 2050 policy for a considerable period of time. In terms of how you get there, we backed that up with a rewiring the nation policy—$20 billion announced in my first budget reply—to make sure that electricity transmission is brought into the 21st century. That's the most significant and easy thing that you can do between now and 2030. We have a policy for community batteries, making sure that you can maximise what you get out of solar energy. We have a plan to make electronic vehicles cheaper by reducing taxes. We asked the government about that today. The don't seem to comprehend that that's a large part of the high price for electric vehicles. If you want to change behaviour, you do make it cheaper. But, of course, they said that electric vehicles would end the weekend. We want to make sure that Australian workers benefit. That's why we have a new energy apprenticeships plan. We want new industry, and we've said how we will pay for it: a $15 billion national reconstruction fund to transform existing industries. But we also want to talk about the opportunity that's there. We have abundant resources in this country. I've got an idea. How about we use those resources to make things here and to create jobs here? That's why it fits in with the buy Australia plan that we have as well. They've adopted net zero by 2050, but we'd encourage them to adopt all the rest of that plan as well. We will have more to say, but we've already made significant announcements going forward. The Prime Minister leaves for Glasgow tomorrow. Glasgow did give the world Billy Connolly, so they do recognise a joke when they see one. You will have to wonder what they will make of this Prime Minister walking into that conference. He'll stand up and say, 'Technology! We want technology!' They will say: 'Hang on. Isn't this the guy who said electric vehicles will end the weekend? Isn't this the mob that said that renewable energy targets are bad? Isn't this the government that says that solar and wind don't work unless the sun is shining and the wind is blowing? Isn't this the government that tried to get rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA?' He did get rid of the fund that was there for carbon capture and storage. An opposition member: The government doesn't mention that. Mr ALBANESE R36 They never mentioned that. They got rid of the fund that was there. Now this Prime Minister says that he accepts that climate change is real, because he knows that his opposition to net zero is simply unsustainable. But there's no conviction there. This guy is all show and no go. He's not fair dinkum, and Australians know that. He's all marketing, no substance. What we need to deal with the challenge of climate change is a government that understands the opportunity that meeting that challenge represents—an opportunity for Australia to take advantage of being in the fastest-growing region of the world in human history and an opportunity to create jobs by becoming a renewable energy superpower for the world. That means committing to net zero by 2050, but it means actually setting about creating it, not having people speak who once argued that we need to get— (Time expired) 15:23 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's very good to be able to speak on this important motion, because what the Leader of the Opposition has just outlined is his commitment to failure. He attacks, for instance, those people who say we should have an international treaty that includes the world's largest emitters. I am resolutely proud that I want China to be part of the global solution. I want the United States to be part of the global solution. Heck, I even want New Zealand to be part of the global solution. They all ran away from the Kyoto protocol. When it comes to the Leader of the Opposition, he takes more of a Donald Trump approach to engagement in international fora than this side of the chamber—a government which focuses clearly on how we bring the rest of the world to follow our leadership. That's what we saw yesterday, when, for the first time, Australia had, yes, a 2050 target as a nation. Yes, we then had a time frame for the delivery of that target of net zero. But, more critically, for the first time in Australian history we had a comprehensive plan on how we were going to achieve it. We are proud of that as a government because (1) we take our approach to climate change very seriously and (2) what we have understood at every point is that Australians want action on climate change but they don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want the government to burn down the village to save it, as the Australian Greens would have us do. They want to know the government is on their side, to work with business, industry and households to be part of the solution. That's why we've taken a balanced approach and, more critically, taken an Australian approach—the Australian way of reducing our greenhouse gas missions while also making sure we back Australians and their jobs. I was only reminded of this yesterday. Late last night, I did an interview on BBC World, and in a particularly shrill and hostile interview—from the interviewer—they kept asking why I kept arguing for an Australian solution to this problem. Eventually I had to break it to her that they haven't factored in the affordability of energy as part of their plan and there are millions of people in northern Europe who are at risk of high energy prices, and that now, in the lead-up to winter, there's a very serious risk that northern Europeans will literally die in the tens of thousands because they have not got access to affordable energy—and that that is not our solution. That is not our approach. But it is the approach of one group of people, which includes the Australian Labor Party, who are more interested in cutting emissions without any consideration of the consequences than this side of the chamber is. We're focused on what we need to do to build the future Australian economy, cut emissions and be part of taking responsibility through a global solution. We heard this explicitly today from the independent member for Warringah, who moved a motion to bring forward her bill. What she said in that speech, I've got to say, was profoundly enlightening and extremely disturbing. She said explicitly that the objective of her motion was to introduce a bill that would take the decision-making away from duly elected representatives. I saw members on the other side of this chamber nodding along with the independent member for Warringah about that policy because what they want to do is introduce targets in legislation so they can empower bureaucrats to veto the decisions of this very parliament. It is not something that we are ever prepared to accept. We saw this before in the independent member for Warringah's bill that she introduced last year, which literally would have empowered the appointment of climate tsars to veto the decisions of this parliament. There is nothing more antidemocratic. And now the Labor Party want to do the same, because what they want is legislation that activists can use in the courts to override the decisions of this parliament—and we will not stand for it. We want to make sure we deliver a solution for the Australian people. And what matters in this debate isn't intent; it's outcomes. Without a legislated target, this government hasn't just reached a 20.8 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels; more critically, the OECD average for emissions reduction over the same time frame is only seven per cent. So we're beating it by a factor of three. In the 130-page comprehensive plan we released yesterday, the updated projections show we'd reach a 35 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. At the same time the Labor Party hasn't even got a plan. Let's not even talk about when you're going to legislate. You don't even have one and you don't even have a target. How can you legislate air, nothing? You on the other side of the chamber have got nothing to offer. What we're doing is delivering that plan and making sure we cut emissions along the way. This morning, in the motion where the independent member for Warringah wanted to introduce her democracy-attacking bill, the member for McMahon came up here and attacked the government for exactly the same reason the Leader of the Opposition did just moments ago. Now, we all remember the member for McMahon from the last election, when he managed to elevate himself to the pantheon of Labor greats for quotes—like Paul Keating, who said it was the 'recession we had to have'; like Kevin Rudd, who said climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our time, only weeks later abandoning his very commitment and his signature policy, such was his commitment; or, of course, like Julia Gillard, who said before an election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' only to introduce one after she did a sneaky deal with the Greens to form a coalition government. And, before the last election, the member for McMahon was one of those Labor greats, and it will always go down in the history of quotes: 'You are perfectly entitled to vote against us if you don't agree with our policy.' Mr Connelly 282984 Hear, hear! Mr TIM WILSON IMW One hundred per cent right, to the member for Stirling! He remembers that moment clearly, as all the members on this side of the chamber do, because it was the time that the member for McMahon gave permission to millions of Australians who he wanted to push below the poverty line to say, 'Don't vote for us,' and, 'We agree.' Let's remember what the member for McMahon did before the last election. He came after Australian retirees and tried to slash their incomes by over 30 per cent by the introduction of a retiree tax. He failed, and we know on this side of the chamber he failed. But now he's come back with a vengeance where he wants to increase the nation's retirees' bills, particularly their electricity bills. There is simply no empathy or understanding of the impact of what he proposes on the Australian people, including some of the most vulnerable. We see it very clearly in this chamber every time he gets up to the dispatch box. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The assistant minister will pause for a moment. The member for Wills is seeking the call. Mr Khalil 101351 A point of order on relevance: the member for Goldstein is talking about economic policies that have nothing to do with this MPI. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D There's no point of order. Continue. Mr TIM WILSON IMW I do thank the member for his interjection, because it shows how tin eared they are of the economic consequences of their decisions. But what we know is the member for McMahon went after the incomes of Australian retirees at the last election and failed. Now he is doing what he can to increase the electricity bills of Australian retirees, should they win the next election. At every point it's an assault and a tax that they seek to promote, because what it does is it empowers the Labor Party at the expense of average Australians. That's why they want a legislated target. They want a legislated target, because it gives them a back door to achieve every single policy agenda that they could. You just need to look at what's happening in the United Kingdom right now. It's not just that there is a genuine threat with a tin ear to the economic consequences of environmental policies that make sure that Britons can't heat their homes but that activists are now using the courts to stop infrastructure development, the building of roads in communities and anything they don't like. And, sadly, we've seen similar behaviour here in this country, where activists have sought to use courts to stop projects and stop development and, frankly, stop job creation in this nation. And we know they'll do it against many of the wealth creating sectors of this country. I'm sure the member opposite, who I have no doubt is about to speak, will be able to tell you how often legal pathways are used to try and shut down investments in Australian economic growth. Of course she will run interference and defend it every step of the way in pursuit of their legislated target, but what they won't understand are the human consequences of what they propose. This side of the chamber stands by the Australian people, this side of the chamber seeks democratic endorsement for its work, this side of the chamber backs the creation of jobs and this side of the chamber wants to cut emissions too. (Time expired) 15:33 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Last summer, as the Leader for the Opposition pointed out in his kick-off of this MPI, the Deputy Prime Minister shouted at the clouds, 'I don't want the government in my life!' Well, as we say in the Hunter: 'Mate, you are the government! Seriously! And governments are elected to make laws. It's called legislating.' Now, back here on Earth, out of the clouds, a road to Damascus experience is one in which a person has a sudden insight that radically changes their belief. You refer to it as the road to Damascus—he's gotten it. Well, we've seen firsthand from those opposite this week, before our eyes, on the road to Glasgow, they've had an epiphany! They've seen the light! They've heard the voice! They realise that they do need to get to net zero by 2050, but they're refusing to legislate for it They do need a plan for the future, but their plan is a sham. How can any worker in this country really trust this government? Workers who will be most impacted by these decisions have been left in the dark, with no real consideration and absolutely no input. We've seen this past fortnight that those opposite couldn't even agree with each other as to whether net zero was a priority for the nation or not. For many years now, the energy industry and all Australian industries have gone it alone. They've progressed with their plans towards net zero in the absence of any leadership from this Prime Minister or, quite frankly, his puerile predecessors. Outside of the bizarre world of the coalition, climate action and the transformation of our economy through its transition to renewables have moved way beyond ideology. Globally, we've seen broad support from unions, resource companies and world leaders—Boris Johnson even. Locally, we've seen support from the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation—for goodness sake—state governments, local governments, churches and community groups. At every level we have seen this call to action, but this Prime Minister is truly still trying to play catch-up. The blunt reality is that we have no legislated target for 2050. That's it. So nothing holds us to this target. All the benefits this Prime Minister is banking on to hit our 2030 target are based on what the states and territories and Australians themselves have already done. He's cashing in on your hard work and again claiming the credit for something he has actually had nothing to do with. He doesn't hold a hose, and he certainly hasn't helped you put your solar panels on your roofs. In term after term, under leader after leader, we have had neglect from those opposite. They don't appreciate Australian industry, and they don't respect Australian workers. As many in this place know, I have never shied away from being on the side of coalminers and coal industry workers, and I will always proudly stand up in this place and outside it for them and the industries that they represent. I proudly care about my community, and I'm not afraid to call the government out for failing to look after them. For years I've been on the ground talking to miners and to the industries that depend on mining and making sure they have a role in these vital decisions about our future and about their future. My colleague the member for Brand has been on the ground talking to the industry, and she knows what workers want too. She knows what industry needs, and it's certainly not being delivered under this mob. Labor will legislate to ensure transformation does not leave Australian workers behind. That's a commitment this Prime Minister cannot make, and he will not make it even in the eleventh hour on his road to Glasgow. I say to the mining families of the Hunter: I want you to know what this means for you. This government is not backing you in. All you have seen from this government is denial, outright lies and bickering. How can any worker trust this Morrison government in the absence of any transparency or any consistent legislated plan? Let me say to you: do not trust them with your vote and do not trust them with your future. 15:38 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey The topic of this matter of public importance today is, of course, 'the importance of legislating net zero emissions by 2050'. I was surprised, then, when the member for Grayndler, the Leader of the Opposition, took 10 minutes of this chamber's time and didn't actually mention what he would legislate if he were Prime Minister. This seems to me to be a glaring omission. In fact, I don't think I've heard anyone from that side of this debate talk about what it is they would like to see legislated. The government absolutely accepts the necessity of reaching a net-zero-emissions platform by 2050, and the PM has made that commitment in this place. He will also make that commitment in Glasgow next week. Then the whole world will know exactly where Australia stands on this, and it will be with a number of other leading democracies around the world that have the target of net zero by 2050. I've raised many times in this place and outside the concerns that I have about a number of other countries of the world who will say one thing and do the other, but I will let the Prime Minister deal with that. Just as we signed up to Kyoto 1, Kyoto 2 and the Paris commitments without passing legislation saying, 'We shall meet these particular targets,' so we have done with this one—and so we shall do exactly the same. We've set the target and we will meet and beat that target. The track record of this government is that we underpromise and overperform—that we overdeliver—and I think we will do the same with this. We've had outstanding results on emissions reduction. We've heard a lot in this chamber, from this side of the House at least, about our more than 20 per cent reduction since 2005. But, in fact, it's a much better result than that; we've had a more than 38 per cent reduction in our domestic emissions. But, at the end of the day, we have very little control over what other countries do with their emissions, and regardless of where they source their energy requirements from—for instance, whether they buy the coal from us or anyone else—the net result for the world will be the same. If I have time at the end of my five minutes I will get back to that. On the matter of legislating a target: what does 'legislating a target' even mean? If we legislate that we will be at zero by 2050, what does that actually mean? It doesn't mean anything unless the government does something to facilitate that. That is the legislation that counts: what is done to bring about that outcome? Well, we might as well legislate for world peace, or we could legislate for an end to cancer. But, if you don't do anything about it, you're not likely to get to that point. We could legislate, for instance, that no child should live in poverty. But, if you don't do anything about it, you'll never get to that point. If you want to achieve world peace and you say you are going to legislate it, you could legislate to get rid of your defence budget. I don't think that would work. In fact, I'm absolutely confident that it wouldn't work. You could legislate to double it, but I don't think that would work either. If you wanted to get rid of child poverty you could legislate to give every kid $1 million. But I am pretty confident that that wouldn't fix the problem either. The point is that having a legislated target means absolutely nothing; it's about the tools, the incentives and the rules you put in about it. That makes you wonder what it is that Labor actually want to legislate. Do they want to legislate the end of the coal industry? Do they want to legislate that people can't use fossil fuel driven cars anymore? Do they want to get rid of diesel? That's the legislation that really counts. As the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, nearly all our laws actually stop people from doing things. The world in a vacuum has no laws except the laws of nature. In a civilised democracy like Australia we have developed laws that say thou shalt not kill and you shall not drive on the right-hand side of the road. We don't pass a law saying that you should drive on the left-hand side of the road; we pass a law saying that it's illegal to drive on the other side of the road. It's the same with climate change or emissions targets. All you can do is legislate to stop people doing things, and that is the sting in the tail of where the opposition comes from. What are those taxes? What are those things that they are going to stop everyday Australians from doing? I spoke about coal. I don't have much time, except to say that we are a minor producer of coal in the world. China produces eight times what we produce and India produces three times what we produce. We are well down the pecking order. (Time expired) 15:43 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore [by video link] My constituents in Gilmore want action on this climate crisis. Those that sit opposite are divided and all over the place when it comes to addressing climate change, and we are seeing that again with another climate denier now back in cabinet. It is the ultimate irony that the member for Hinkler is now the resources minister when he does not support net zero emissions. He does not support the resources jobs, the jobs right throughout regional Australia, that are provided by the resources industry. That was the deal that had to be struck to even get to the bare minimum of net zero by 2050. Furthermore, they traded off $250 billion for fossil fuel projects that the banks won't even touch. And what of the coalition's flirtation with nuclear energy? I remind the House that I was part of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy nuclear energy inquiry in 2019. I speak as strongly now as I did then in my opposition to any shift towards nuclear power. But as recently as 2018 the Nationals even went so far as to pass a motion at the federal council calling on the federal and state governments to abolish regulation as necessary to allow the development of nuclear energy. The new resources minister is their biggest nuclear advocate. The Gilmore electorate will never accept a nuclear power plant being built in Jervis Bay, not now, not ever. The risks are simply too great—risks to our beautiful coastline and to our health, risks to the reputation of our primary producers and to our hospitality and tourism industries that thrive on our environment. We know that accidents happen. We have seen that. Climate change is the biggest challenge facing the planet and the biggest economic opportunity in front of Australia, but it requires leadership and detailed framework. But all we received yesterday were some slides and more slogans and no solutions, no plan on how to encourage greater private investment in renewables, nothing. Only an Albanese Labor government will provide certainty and the detailed policy required. This government has been there for almost nine years, and quite literally two days before the Prime Minister jets off to Glasgow for the most important international conference on climate change this century he offers no new initiatives. That's right. In their own words, this plan is based on our existing policies. Knowing this government is all about spin, legislation is paramount in providing the people of Australia with a commitment, the same certainty in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. All have informally legislated net zero emissions by 2050. So the Australian people have a choice: the Morrison government which doesn't really believe in net zero by 2050, with no plan to get there, or a Labor government which believes passionately that the world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. People in my electorate do want to see more renewables and more jobs in renewables. We should be the renewable superpower that will benefit the regions. Cheaper, cleaner power. Locally in Gilmore we have great community groups, like Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action; businesses; and organisations that are just waiting to have the policies in place under a Labor government to support more renewables and more jobs in renewables. I know we can turn good climate policy into good jobs policy and reduce emissions and create long-term secure work for people in the process. I know that action on climate change is good for jobs, good for lowering energy prices and good for lowering emissions. Cheaper, cleaner power. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Action on climate change doesn't cost jobs; it creates them. This Morrison government is frightened of the present and terrified of the future. Australia needs a government that has ambition to seize those opportunities, and that is an Albanese Labor government. 15:48 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I'm proud to stand to speak on the fact that this is a very momentous week in Australia's history, and that is because Australia is aiming to meet net zero emissions by 2050, and we're going to do that the Australian way. We are going to act in a practical, responsible way to reduce emissions while preserving Australian jobs and taking advantage of the new opportunities that this green future is going to offer to Australia and to the world. And we're going to do that because we know the practicalities of it. This is about practical plans, not wishful thinking. This is about getting the job done, not hoping you can get the job done. This is about a plan that brings the Australian people with us. It's a plan that incorporates both the environmental concerns of bringing down emissions and the economic concerns where we need cheap, affordable, reliable and secure energy. Australia has benefited for over a century on cheap energy supply, but it's now time for us to develop a new, green, cheap energy supply not just for us but for the world. And, if you look at the work that this government has done in the last 2½ years since I've been elected, there's been an enormous amount of work on a plan. In fact, I was asked on the ABC in October 2019 what my view of a target was. At that time I said that I'm not interested in a target until I know what the plan is. There is no point in talking about a target without a plan, but that is what we are seeing from the other side. There is a conversation about a target, about what that target may or may not be, but there's nothing about the plan. A target without a plan is completely useless. Every mother knows that. Every father knows that. Every business knows that. Every institution knows that. Every industry knows that. We need a plan that's reliable and affordable and the elements of which we know. Our plan is based on five key principles. It's about technology. The scientists and engineers of the world are working day and night to solve the problems of energy for the world. We know there is no silver bullet. We know that we're going to have a diversified energy portfolio. We can see that in our five stretch targets, which have now become six stretch targets. The sort of debate I would like to see here on the floor is a debate about the diversified technology portfolio that we are developing. We're developing it knowing that we need to have affordable hydrogen. We know that hydrogen could be the firming power of our future. At the moment, it's going to be gas in our transition to a renewable future. We know that the sun and wind are great for Australia. We know that when the sun shines and the wind blows we've got plentiful energy, but we do need to have a firming capacity. That means that, when there is a wind drought, as there has been in the UK recently, or when it's overnight and the sun has gone down, we need to have more battery storage than for just an hour or so, which batteries can only provide currently, or we need to have some firming power, which might be gas for peaking gas stations, or hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, it will be supplied by hydrogen. If we can get green hydrogen to under $2 a kilogram, it will be incredibly commercialisable and scalable. That's what Professor Alan Finkel, the former Chief Scientist has been helping us to back in with an investment of more than $1.2 billion in clean hydrogen. I was visiting this morning the clean hydrogen hubs that we're seeing already sprouting here in the ACT. We have views on ultra low-cost solar; on energy storage; on low-emission steel and aluminium and even green cement; on carbon capture and storage; and, of course, on soil carbon measurement. That is in stark contrast to those sitting on the benches opposite, because all they can talk about is targets and legislation. All they can talk about is the mechanisms of politics, not the realities of the plan. The Australian people need an authentic conversation, which means that we understand that you are the people—not you, Deputy Speaker O'Brien, but those who are listening—who are going to have to work to make sure that your clean energy future is going to help us get to where we need to get to. The plan on the other side hasn't been talked about at all. Will they legislate taxes? Will their plan impact on manufacturing because energy prices have gone up? Is their approach going to be at any cost—a blank cheque? What I'm afraid of from those on the other side is that they are back-seat drivers in this energy debate. They are sour about the fact that they are not in the driver's seat. The Morrison government is in the driver's seat. They are in the back seat and are moaning about the direction, but in their heart of hearts the Labor Party and those on the opposite side know that we are going in the right direction. We know that Australia's future is certain with the Morrison government. 15:54 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons [by video link] The rhetoric from government members has changed markedly over the past eight years, and that contribution from the member for Higgins just goes to show that if we had been having this sort of debate for the past eight years then Australia would be in a very different place from where it is now. The fact is that for the past eight years the Morrison government and the Abbott government before that have demonised and weaponised climate change and climate change action. We're getting a very different story from some government members now. Labor understands that the world's climate emergency is Australia's job opportunity. We have always understood that. Labor understands that people in Australia's regions stand to benefit the most from stronger climate change action. Labor understands, and we have always understood, that technology is key to achieving net zero. It's why at the last election we offered incentives for the take-up of electric vehicles, incentives that were ridiculed by those opposite but, it appears, are now being copied by them. Labor has always been on the side of technology and making sure that we take stronger action towards net zero. The Liberals have demonstrated again and again that they simply cannot be trusted. Whether it's cuts to pensions or Medicare, robodebt or their failure to address climate change, the Liberals have shown they have not earned and do not deserve Australia's trust. The member for Batman described the performance and behaviour of those opposite as 'a circus'. The Leader of the Opposition has described the Deputy Prime Minister as 'a human whoopee cushion'. Another analogy would be that those opposite are engaged in a cheap magic show, because all we have seen from the government this week is illusions, sleight of hand, distraction and fast talking. They have pulled out the full bag of tricks. But when you cut through the fluff you are left dazed and the only thing in your hand is a pamphlet. I remember Tony Abbott waving around a pamphlet; I think it was called 'Real Solutions'. It was launched with fanfare and photos, and it disappeared faster than he did! All we have from the Prime Minister is this so-called plan with no new ideas, no new policies and no real commitment to achieving net zero by 2050—just so many words and slogans about aspirations, hopes, processes and maybes. 'The plan, the plan!' cries Prime Minister Tattoo, stranded on his very own Fantasy Island. After eight years of ridiculing climate change action, of trying to defund climate action bodies, of rejecting science and of abandoning regional energy jobs, the Prime Minister expects us to simply believe him. But he won't release the modelling. He does not trust Australians to see the assumptions on which he has built his so-called plan. 'Trust me!' As if! Australians do not trust this Prime Minister on net zero by 2050 because his own government members don't trust him on net zero. Here is what senior members of the government have said, in their own words. The Deputy Prime Minister: 'Climate change is a scam. Clean energy is a scam.' Senator Rennick: 'Net zero is a fantasy target.' The Deputy Prime Minister again: 'Net zero by 2050 is ridiculous.' Senator Cash: 'Net zero by 2050 is a job-destroying policy.' The Deputy Prime Minister yet again: 'Net zero is an infliction on our rights.' The member for Dawson: 'The science on climate change is not settled.' And the member for Mallee, just the other day: 'Wind farms don't work at night.' Let's not forget that the 'climate change is a scam' member for New England will be the Acting Prime Minister next week while the PM negotiates climate change action in Glasgow. The Acting Prime Minister will be joined at the cabinet table by the member for Hinkler, the anti-renewables minister promoted to cabinet in the same week the Prime Minister seeks to convince world leaders that Australia will do its fair share in meeting the global climate action challenge. You would laugh if it wasn't so serious, and it is serious. Longer, harder droughts, floods and fire that are more severe and happen more often, acidification of our oceans—we have had eight wasted years that we can never get back. I want to rebuild our regions, and renewable energy is key to that aspiration. Tasmania is a leader in Australia when it comes to renewable energy and net zero, and it will continue to be a leader. I look forward to being part of it. 15:58 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls It's always great to stand up and talk about the achievements that the coalition government has achieved when it comes to emissions reduction. It's incredible how, in such a highly informed place such as the Australian Parliament House, everybody from the Labor Party, somehow, would rather forget to mention the fact that Australia is leading the way when it comes to rooftop solar. We are leading countries like Germany and Japan. We are leading every country in the world, and not just by a small way; we are leading the world by the length of the straight. With the uptake of rooftop solar sitting somewhere around one in every four to one in every three houses, we have a great opportunity to build on that start. People from the Labor Party and the Greens want to say, 'How can you trust the coalition to go forward without legislation?' Well, the greatest indicator of future behaviour is always past behaviour. We're standing there in front of the Australian people saying, 'We signed up to previous agreements in Kyoto, Kyoto 1 and Kyoto 2, and we beat those targets easily.' Up until about two years ago, the term 'net zero by 2050' wasn't actually a thing. The criticism from the climate warriors of the world was all about, 'Australia, you're not going to meet your commitments from Paris,' the agreement that we signed in 2015. Effectively, that was talking about base figures from 2005 and how we were going to go against that base year by the time we got to 2030. We were criticised continually by those opposite, saying, 'You're not going to get there, and the only way you're going to get there is with some sneaky form of accounting.' Well, all that stuff was wrong. They were wrong then and they're wrong now. The opportunity is for the Australian government to look the Australian people in the eye and say, 'We're going to go to Glasgow and we're going to make this commitment but, at the moment, the technology doesn't quite exist for us to get there.' That's just being honest with the Australian people. If you're honest with the Australian people, you have to say to them that the technology we need to get us there doesn't quite exist at the moment. It's not far away. At the moment we're sending some exports of hydrogen to Asia, but it's made from coal. We're also in the process of sending some hydrogen off to Asia again, but it's made from gas. If we listened to our friends in the Labor Party, they'd say that neither of those technologies are good enough. They want us to be able to send hydrogen overseas and use hydrogen here, provided it's made from solar. But at the moment the cost of doing that is about four times the commercial rate that we need. So if anybody over there wants to go to the Australian people and say, 'Oh, we're happy to go into hydrogen but it's going to cost you four times the cost for energy that you pay currently,' do they want to have that conversation with the Australian people? No, they won't, because they're not honest enough to have that conversation. We just need to be straight. We're putting in our plan that there are billions of dollars which will go into battery technology. We're going to invest heavily—we already are and we're going to invest more. We're going to invest serious dollars—again, into the billions—in hydrogen technology and battery storage. And we're going to continue with the plan which we started four years ago for pumped hydro and Snowy 2.0. That's going to be a significant base energy source for us. And we're not going to be lectured to by these countries in Europe either. The 20 leading countries in Europe are effectively all leaning on nuclear to prop up their base energy mix. That's fine for them—they're lucky enough to be able to do that. But, again, the people who we're arguing with here in our energy mix don't want to hear about us joining the opportunity to have nuclear in our energy mix. They don't want that and they're not going to allow that—at the moment; I'm hoping that the decision and the conversation within Australia surrounding nuclear as a base energy mix may change in the coming years. I think that people who want to stand in this place and talk about the Australian government's contribution to net zero 2050 need to have a touch of honesty about it. They need to acknowledge the achievements that we have done so far. We have been able to achieve all of these previous agreements without legislation and I don't understand, quite rightly, how, all of a sudden, our ability to meet net zero 2050 and our ability to continue to meet our Paris agreement have become contingent upon legislation. It just doesn't make any sense. 16:03 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley The Prime Minister and his climate-denying dinosaurs in the coalition are trying to take my constituents for fools. They're waving around a marketing pamphlet that does little more than sweep dust off a few old policies and kick actual climate action as a can down the road. Northsiders are sick to death of being lectured to by this Prime Minister about how grateful they should be that he's in charge and how good he is in power, even as he delegates that power to the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for New England. There's not a morsel of responsibility that he will not shirk. But that daggy dad from the Shire has really missed the mood on this one. He has misread the mood in my suburbs, that's for sure. At every mobile office I hold, people come to me and ask me to raise this issue in this place and to demand action in this place. That's because every suburb and every town in Australia is affected by climate change—every one. Australians in the regions are not the only people concerned about the effects of climate change, just as Australians in the suburbs and the cities are not the only people concerned about the cost of inaction. My constituents want to protect the Bowen Basin and Moranbah just as much as we want to protect the Brighton foreshore or the Boondall wetlands, and they know that good climate policy is also good jobs policy, that climate action will not cost jobs; climate action will create jobs. The cost of refusing to act, to protect our environment from the harshening climate, is a cost that no Australian should be forced to bear because of the pig-headedness of this lot loitering on the government benches after nine years. We know that climate change is no longer a theoretical threat. Our nation has been devastated by droughts, by fires, by floods and by crop failures in recent years. We also know that acting on climate change isn't just a moral imperative to protect our environment for future generations, it is an economic one. Because of Lilley's coastal location and because of Cabbage Tree Creek and because of Kedron Brook and because of our longitude and latitude on the globe, we are particularly vulnerable to some of the more destructive consequences of climate change. Approximately one-third of Lilley is vulnerable to sea-level rise and two-fifths of our electorate would be vulnerable to flooding events due to projected increases in the rainfall intensity. Cyclone paths are moving in a southerly direction, dramatically increasing the likelihood of cyclones in South-East Queensland. We had a tornado at the Brisbane Airport last week. The number of days above 35 degrees in Lilley is predicted to rise above 25 annually by 2070. Putting all of these climate projections together, the cost of home insurance is expected to skyrocket, putting immense pressure on household budgets. Further, almost 5,000 homes in Lilley are expected to become uninsurable by 2050. So as the cost of living continues to rise for most northsiders, acting to mitigate climate change and investing in renewable energy opportunities is one way we can ease the burden on household budgets, by cutting electricity costs and by keeping home insurance rates in check. If the Morrison government are fair dinkum about achieving net zero by 2050—the people who came and legislated pins in strawberries, may I remind you—they will come into the House right now and table their modelling. They will come in and legislate for net zero by 2050. Without legislation, stronger medium-term targets and science backed modelling the Morrison government's plan for net zero is not worth the glossy pamphlet paper it has been freshly printed on. The Morrison government are only okay setting up a 2050 target because none of us in this place will be here in 2050 to be held responsible. By 2050 the Prime Minister will be retired in Hawaii, and the Deputy Prime Minister will be back standing in a paddock yelling at a cloud about the government interfering with his pension. It will be the next generation, our children and grandchildren, who will be cleaning up the mess left by this Morrison government. To finish off, let's play a few rounds of my favourite game: 'The Betoota Advocate headline or real Morrison government policy', the climate change edition. First off: 'Windfarms and solar panels do not work at night.' Was that Morrison government or Betoota? An opposition member: Morrison! Ms WELLS 264121 It was the Morrison government proclamation. That was from the newly reappointed cabinet Minister for Resources and Water this week. Next one: 'Government that spent nine years gutting CSIRO funding now relying on yet-to-be-invented technology to deliver net zero'. That was Betoota. 'Net zero by 2050 is job-destroying policy.' Another government lie. (Time expired) 16:08 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth Thanks to the member for Lilley for the light comic relief at the end. I find this kind of a puzzling motion, because when you make an international commitment—and I've been involved in a few in my lifetime—you do that by making a commitment with the treaty organisation that holds the treaty. When we made our Paris Agreement target we deposited what's called a nationally determined contribution, which is a treaty-level instrument with the repository of the treaty—the treaty being the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; the repository being the UN Secretariat in New York. That's how you make an international commitment. When we signed the Kyoto protocol we didn't legislate the Kyoto protocol in Australia, we made an international commitment. We made the Paris Agreement—we made that commitment internationally rather than domestically. When we formalise our commitment to net zero by 2050 we'll do it in exactly the same way, by making a formal communication to the treaty body repository. I think what this matter of public importance debate confuses somewhat is what the purpose of legislation is. Legislation is not an end in itself; it's a means to an end, the end being the policy goal and legislation providing the means. Legislation does not of itself fulfil a policy goal. If that were the case, we could simply pass a bill to end child poverty. We could simply pass a bill to effect reconciliation with Australia's First Nations people. We could simply pass a bill to end homelessness. We could simply pass a bill to abolish inflation. If it is that easy, if we just have to pass a bill and do it, let's do it right now. But it's not that easy, because legislation is about providing the means to reach a policy goal. This is no difference. The legislation we were discussing and debating earlier today, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, helps us get down the road towards net zero by 2050. Our appropriations bills, which we pass, discuss and debate in parliament, help us get down the road to 2050, as do new regulations that allow ARENA to fund things like green hydrogen, low-emission steel and aluminium, carbon soil and carbon capture and storage. Those are the mechanisms by which you use legislation to meet our policy goal of net zero by 2050. I also found this quite puzzling because, having realised this debate was coming on, I went and had a look at the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy's report on the climate change bills. That was a bipartisan committee: there were Labor members as well as coalition members on the committee. The majority report of that committee—which means that Labor and coalition members signed up to this—said: The Committee recommends that the Bills not be passed. That means that Labor members of the committee recommended that a net-zero 2050 target not be legislated. In fact, in the additional comments provided by the Labor members of this committee—including the member for Macnamara, who's sitting over there—they said: Labor members support the need for the Australian Government to adopt a commitment of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 … That was the Labor recommendation in that report—that they 'support the need for the Australian government to adopt a commitment of achieving net zero emissions by 2050'. Well, guess what we've just done. Guess what happened earlier this week. Guess what the Prime Minister announced in a press conference just yesterday. The Australian government is adopting a net-zero emissions target by 2050. I would have thought the member for Macnamara would be up applauding along with his colleague the member for Fremantle. Both of them were co-authors of those additional comments in that report. How we're going to get to net zero is by continuing to do what we've already done: investing in new technology, providing consumers with choice, and enabling new capital to enter the marketplace to scale up these technologies and make them commercially available. It will come about because we will have helped make the measurement of soil carbon come in commercially at less than $3 per hectare. It will come about because we will be able to produce green hydrogen at less than $2 a kilo. It will come about because we will be able to manufacture large-scale solar that will produce power at less than $15 per megawatt hour. It will come about because we will be able to produce green steel at less than $700 a tonne and green aluminium at less than $2,200 a tonne. This is how we're going to get to net zero—not by passing a bill in the parliament and not by having meaningless debates about that bill in the parliament but by passing enabling legislation like the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill and the ARENA regulations, which will allow us to invest in clean technology, and then allowing the magic forces of new technology, new investment, consumers and investors to do their work. If only it were as easy as just passing a bill to fix all the social ills of the world! If that were the case, we would have all the answers from those opposite. But it's not that easy. When you make a commitment like this, you have to be serious about how you're going to deliver it. This, unfortunately, is just a stunt. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Communications and the Arts Committee 74 Report 74 16:13 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee On behalf of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Sculpting a national cultural plan: igniting a post-COVID economy for the arts, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr WEBSTER 281688 by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, it gives me great pleasure to present the committee's report on the inquiry into Australia's cultural industries and institutions. Australia is home to a vibrant and diverse landscape of creative and cultural industries and institutions, which form a vital part of our culture, identity and economy. Australia's cultural industries were significantly impacted by recent events, including the bushfires of 2019 and 2020 as well as COVID-19, which resulted in the closure of public venues, performance spaces, community hubs and gatherings. Many artists had to change methods of production and delivery during this time to continue to engage with their audiences. The committee recognises the adaptiveness and innovation shown by the industry in dealing with these changes. The committee also recognises the steps the government has taken to support the industry during this time, but considers that there are additional opportunities to support the industry—especially in a post-COVID economy. The committee considered that to support the recovery of the industry, maximise employment and contribute to economic growth, a national cultural plan should be developed to assess the medium- and long-term needs of the sector. A cohesive and multilevel approach would allow Australia's vast and diverse arts industry to showcase Australia's cultural value both to domestic and international audiences. The vastness of Australia's arts industry can create challenges to those starting their career in this field, as well as to those who are already established within the industry. The committee has therefore recommended the establishment of an 'arts starter portal', which would contain information on taxation, intellectual property laws, access to mentoring and other supports available to the industry. Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists contribute uniquely to the art and culture of this country, and this contribution warrants deeper consideration and greater prominence in our arts landscape. The committee recommends that a national centre of Indigenous culture and arts be established to support Indigenous artists. A codesign process with Indigenous arts communities and arts bodies will ensure that a culturally appropriate site is identified, that a national network of art is established. This will provide improvement in Indigenous representation and participation across all areas. The arts comprise a key learning area in Australia's schools, and all levels of government have a role in supporting these programs. Given the significant benefits of these programs, identified during the inquiry, the committee considered that the arts should be combined with science, technology, engineering and mathematics to foster the creativity and innovation in Australia's youth which the future job market will seek out. The committee made several additional recommendations, including: a review of the Public Lending Right and the Educational Lending Right programs; the establishment of legislation to require a percentage of local revenue to be spent on the Australian television and movie industry; the establishment of a local artistic champions program to provide financial support to Australia's emerging artists; and, finally, the establishment of a music access assistance program to increase participation in musical endeavours. On behalf of the committee, I extend my sincere thanks to those who participated in the inquiry by completing the survey, preparing submissions and appearing at public hearings, and who graciously gave their time to share their experiences with the committee during this challenging time for Australia's arts industry. I also want to acknowledge, firstly, the leadership of the previous chair, Dr David Gillespie, the member for Lyne, who facilitated the public inquiry, and also the tremendous work of the secretariat in working on behalf of the committee. I commend this report to the House. 16:18 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara by leave—I too would like to acknowledge the member for Mallee as the new chair of our committee for coming into the committee and taking over from the member for Lyne. It's not an easy task to do, to steer a committee through the end of an inquiry, but it was one which she handled very well and I, along with all the members of the committee, appreciate her leadership. I acknowledge the member for Lyne in his efforts to steer us through this inquiry—a really important inquiry. And, of course, I acknowledge all of the hardworking staff in the secretariat, who do such a wonderful job and make our work look good throughout the committee inquiry process. At the very start of the pandemic, when the Prime Minister announced that gatherings would be limited to under 500 people, it meant, for many in the creative sector, the end of six months work in fewer than six seconds. It meant that this pandemic took away so much from many in the creative sector. What this inquiry sought to do was to work collaboratively—between the Labour Party and the government—to work out what could be done to help this really vital sector get back on its feet. I acknowledge all members of the committee in their efforts and I acknowledge the deputy chair, the member for Dobell, and of course my friend the member for Perth, who both worked diligently on this inquiry with all members of the committee. I think we all share a deep desire to see this sector back on its feet, but there is important work that needs to be done. Before I touch on some of the additional comments that have been made by the Labour Party, I want to briefly mention a few recommendations that Labour think are really important that the government should adopt, that go above and beyond the recommendations outlined by the chair. The first—beyond the national cultural plan, which I think is a really important recommendation—is the establishment of a national centre of Indigenous culture and arts and ensuring that that is co-designed with Indigenous communities and First Nations people. We have national artistic institutions, but I think this would be a fantastic thing and a source of national pride in a culturally significant place that would be able to tell Australia's long history—thousands of years of history—in a way that people can access, enjoy and celebrate. The other significant recommendation that we managed to agree on in a bipartisan way was that the Office of the Arts be re-established as a named department in itself. It was significant and symbolic that the government decided to take out the named department of the arts and insert it and bury it within the Department of Transport and Infrastructure. What the Department of Transport and Infrastructure has to do with our creative sectors, I'm still learning—and I still haven't yet been told in a convincing way what it has to do with it. But the committee, in a bipartisan way, agreed—and I thank the government members for this—that we should have in Australia a re-established named department of the arts to give it the proper significance that it deserves. Mr BURNS 278522 And I hear the member for Mackellar agrees with that recommendation. Another important recommendation that the committee made was that the Australian Bureau of Statistics better account for the workers in the creative sector that are working in gig economies across the creative and cultural sectors, especially those who are doing unpaid and low-paid work. This is an important group of people that we need to better account for. I want to go briefly to some of the additional comments that have been made by the Labour members of this committee, above and beyond the recommendations made by the bipartisan committee. First of all, JobKeeper was a really important program but it was clearly designed in a way where too many in the creative sector were left out. A key point that we wish to make is that that the newly established department of the arts should be consulted in any decision around any future wage subsidy program so as to ensure that members in this creative sector and in the creative industries in Australia are not left behind and are not sidelined in the way in which they were under the design of the JobKeeper subsidy. We recognise that almost half of those in the creative sector were left off the JobKeeper program. There must be an insurance scheme for the events sector. This sector needs confidence, it needs time and it needs certainty. An insurance scheme is pivotal to be able to get the events sector back on its feet, and we absolutely believe that the government needs to do more in this regard. The government should be fully funding the ABC. We should not be squeezing this national institution. We should not be cutting funding to this institution that helps tell Australian stories and helps create Australian dramas and Australian creative production. We should be removing the efficiency dividend from our national institutions. We should not be squeezing money out of our national agencies that are here to help tell Australian stories and celebrate Australian culture and identity. We should be properly funding the Australia Council. The funding for the arts should not be another slush fund for the Liberal Party. The Australia Council is a proud bipartisan institution that is industry led, and we should be funding it in a way that gives it the full power to help build up not just the major institutions but the small, independent and local institutions that make our communities sing and celebrate the wonderful local stories. The final thing I'll mention is to go above and beyond for development in our gaming sector. We have amazing Australian talent developing video games and gaming productions in Australia. The government has done some important work in increasing the tax offsets, and I absolutely acknowledge that, but we should not just settle for that; we should be looking at ways to help bring Australian games to the world, to celebrate our Australian talent and to export our Australian products to the world market, because there is a big market out there. We could be doing more to support our gaming sector, especially our indie gaming sector. On that, I say that this has been a really important inquiry where we have worked collaboratively, and I acknowledge the government members for the work that they have done. I thank my colleagues in the Labor Party. I fully commend the report to this place and say that the recommendations are important but we on this side believe that the government can and should go above and beyond them as well. 16:26 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 76 16:26 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 77 BILLS Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021, Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 77

Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021

Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021

Assent 77 Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 77

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Second Reading 77 16:27 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner On New Year's Day 2020, this city, my beloved home city of Canberra, had the worst air quality in the world. Bushfire smoke had blanketed the city, and what being outdoors did for your lungs was the same as what smoking a pack of cigarettes a day would do. Increased severe weather events had been warned about since Ross Garnaut's work commissioned by the Rudd and Gillard governments. Yet Prime Minister Morrison denied that there was any link between bushfires and climate change. It led to countries around the world shaking their heads at the inaction from the Morrison government on climate change. In 2020, the Climate Change Performance Index put Australia dead last for our climate policies. We've seen from the Morrison government inaction and denial. The former Prime Malcolm Turnbull has said he puts it down to the 'toxic combination of the fossil fuel lobby, right-wing partisan media, and right-wing sentiment'. He was so outraged by his former party having been captured by the climate denialists that he supported an independent candidate for the New South Wales Upper Hunter by-election over a National Party candidate. As has been pointed out by economist Nicki Hutley, when other countries put in place their COVID response packages they used that as a chance to accelerate the shift towards renewables. Nicki Hutley's analysis suggests that the average national spending from COVID recovery packages on clean energy was 20 per cent. In Australia, it wasn't 20 per cent. It wasn't two per cent. It wasn't even 0.2 per cent. It was 0.02 per cent. That's how little the Australian government grabbed the opportunity to use COVID fiscal stimulus in order to encourage the shift towards renewables. As Ms Hutley noted, the word 'renewables' didn't even appear in the government's policy documents. The former prime minister, Malcom Turnbull, has noted that there hasn't been new major infrastructure investment in long-term storage projects since he announced Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the Basslink plan. So it's not just this side of the House that is deeply disappointed with the lack of action on climate change; it is former prime minister Malcom Turnbull, who, as history records, lost his job not once but twice because he wanted to drag his party into acting on climate change. Acting on climate change is what we've seen from sensible conservatives in Britain, Germany and New Zealand, to name just a few countries. But, in Australia, the Liberal and National parties have taken the Trumpist path, choosing not to act. We heard from the resources minister the other day that solar panels do not work at night. This is a bloke who must be surprised every time he has a shower on a day when it's not raining outside. The fact is, battery technologies— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Mackellar, a point of order? Mr Falinski G86 The point of order relates to the standing orders on relevance. This bill deals with offshore installations, not with Malcolm Turnbull. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 There has been a wide range of debate going on throughout the day that I have heard, and there are amendments moved. You're point of order is quite out of order. Dr LEIGH BU8 I thank the member for Mackellar. I'm sure he's a little sensitive, as somebody who would love to think of himself as a modern liberal but who votes with the climate change deniers on his side. We've even had the member for Mallee saying that wind farms don't work at night, which I'm sure would be extraordinary news to some of those in the wind industry. This Smart Energy Council today launched its election campaign, aiming to vote out the Morrison government for their inaction on climate change. They say: 'Scott Morrison claimed credit for programs like the renewable energy target that he tried to axe. He banked emissions reductions from policies that don't work or won't happen.' The Smart Energy Council is aiming to vote out the Morrison government in order not only to stop the blockers of climate action but to get the jobs in renewables. They point out that there are another potential 45,000 jobs in renewables by 2025. Many of those jobs will be in offshore wind—technology which has been adopted by many other countries around the world, yet it is where Australia has been slow to act. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world, and work by Blue Economy indicates that feasible wind resources are 2,233 gigawatts of offshore wind. That is for an energy market which totals only 55 gigawatts, and it would allow Australia to be a major energy exporter. This is an opportunity which has been taken up by Britain and by many other countries. An important thing to remember about the benefits of offshore wind is that it can tap into areas that have in the past supported coal-fired power stations that either have closed or are scheduled to close in the future—Gippsland, Latrobe, Newcastle, the Hunter Valley, the Illawarra, Gladstone, Central Queensland—where we've got electricity grid infrastructure and the ports, railways and populations that can benefit from new energy and new industry. There are jobs there as well. Those turbines need maintenance, and there's a network of ships and ports required for that maintenance. There are some 26,000 people who work in the offshore wind industry in Britain, and by 2026 there will be another 70,000 people working in that industry. We also have projects that are ready to go. Green Energy Partners have two projects they're looking to start exploratory work on, off the Illawarra and off Newcastle, and they are aiming to use Port Kembla as a construction hub. These bills are inadequate. There is meant to be three bills. We are only debating two of them today, as the Deputy Speaker has noted. As Labor has raised and previous Labor speakers have noted, there are concerns over the way in which worker safety is addressed in these bills. The inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee into these bills heard concerns that the government hasn't adopted the harmonised national work health and safety laws in this bill. That could potentially lead to confusion, and it poses risks for both employees and employees. It's critical that we get this right. Labor is also concerned that in the merit criteria for licences the bill doesn't require local benefits to be included. We believe that the minister should be required to consider the benefits for local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people. We welcome the bills, but they have come very late in an environment in which many other countries have done far more to accelerate the uptake of offshore wind and in which there are more than a dozen offshore wind proposals in Australia. Labor supports clean energy, unlike the Prime Minister, who has compared a large battery to the big prawn or the big banana; unlike the Prime Minister, who has said that electric vehicles will end the weekend; and unlike the Prime Minister, who has presented slideshows and sideshows modelling a so-called plan that is nothing of the sort and that has net zero modelling, net zero legislation and net zero ambition for Australia. If only Australia had a prime minister who was as ambitious for Australia as he is for himself. If only we had a prime minister who was going to Glasgow with strong targets to create renewables jobs in Australia and turn the nation into a clean-energy superpower. 16:38 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons [by video link] It sure is a nice change to see this government come to the table on renewable energy, but isn't the timing just perfect? It is just days out from Glasgow, and we are seeing this government do what it does best, turning up late to the party. And what a party it's turned out to be. We've got the mad bloke with the big hat, the bloke who's asleep most of the time, the woman who doesn't know how she ended up where she is and the grinning cat who disappears when it's convenient to him. What a party it is. We're seeing the member for Hinkler, the anti-renewables minister, back in cabinet in the same week the Prime Minister is flying to Glasgow to tell world leaders he's serious about net zero climate action—fantastic, great move, well done! We've seen the member for Mallee boldly declare on the ABC that wind farms don't work at night. We shouldn't be surprised. The Prime Minister set the example when he said, three years ago, that promoting electric vehicle use across Australia would end the weekend, and now the same Prime Minister is spruiking net zero and spruiking electric vehicles. And now we have these bills before the House, bills that Labor has been calling on the government to bring forward for so long. Labor will support the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the two related bills. Of course we will, because Labor has always recognised the immense potential of renewables. We hadn't had to be dragged to it. We know that renewables are better for the environment but that they also offer terrific opportunities for the economy, especially in our regions. That's particularly the case when it comes to offshore electricity. Around the world, more than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity are now in operation. This global output is expected to reach 80 gigawatts by 2030 and 2,000 gigawatts by 2050. For perspective, Australia's entire national energy market is currently around 55 gigawatts. Tapping into this offshore wind farm resource is essential, and we have the capacity to do so. Right now, there are more than a dozen offshore wind proposals in Australia. This promises enormous generation capacity and tens of thousands of jobs in the construction phase. Further, harnessing these proposals would create thousands of ongoing jobs and garner billions of dollars in investments. I've often spoken in this place of the need to reinvest in Australia's maritime industry. The near death of our maritime sector is a national disgrace. Well, we will need ships and we will need crews to run maintenance workers to and from the turbines, so an added benefit of these bills may well be a much-needed breath of life for our struggling maritime sector. Most of these offshore wind proposals are alongside traditional energy regions due to their strong connections to the electricity grid and other advantages, so offshore wind would therefore benefit the workers and communities who are otherwise most impacted by the global energy transition. But, due to the absence of a regulatory framework, offshore wind and other offshore renewables are not currently permitted in Australia, so we have billions of dollars on our doorstep, but the government's inaction on renewable energy has been leaving Australians in the lurch. It is regrettable that the government has caused such delays. It had promised that 'the legislative settings and framework aim to be in place and operational by mid-2021.' Well, here we are at the end of 2021 and we're only now debating these bills. And, by the end of last week, one of the three bills necessary for these settings to take effect had not even been listed on the Notice Paper. That was rectified this week, but it's yet another last-minute fix. Half baked and late: pretty on brand for this government. We will hear a lot of talk. After all, this government specialises in announcements, but once again the delivery just hasn't been there. The fact is this government is unable to grasp the full suite of opportunities offered by stronger climate action because at its heart, down there in its guts, it really doesn't believe it. Every step of progress has been tortured. You won't hear this government talking enthusiastically about batteries, electric vehicles, pumped hydro, offshore wind—all the technologies available for massive deployment right now. Industry and unions get it. The National Farmers Federation, the Red Meat Advisory Council, the Farmers for Climate Action, the Business Council and the trade unions are all on board. All of these groups know that the economy, industry and jobs are better off with strong and clear climate action policies and not the Mad Hatter's food fight that passes for coalition climate policy. It is only Labor that offers that clarity for investment and for the nation. This government spent eight long years spruiking dishonest scare campaigns that have sought to divide Australians and weaponise climate change. This government spent eight long years spruiking dishonest scare campaigns that have sought to divide Australians and weaponised climate change. It's cost Australia time that can never be recovered, and it's lost the trust of millions of Australians out there in regional Australia who are scared of the change that is coming. We need to catch up quickly, and investing in offshore renewables puts us in the fast lane. All Australians, Tasmanians in particular, will benefit from long-term investment in offshore renewables, and Tasmania has been leading the way for nearly a century. Around 90 per cent of my state's electricity generation is from renewable resources—about 10 per cent of it is from wind and most of it is from hydroelectric. That delivers baseload and peaking electricity for Tasmania's major industrials, small businesses and households, and, because of a link to the mainland, we're also providing power to mainland customers. So Tasmania should very much be at the forefront of this renewable push. Modelling from the Business Council of Australia shows we could create $89 billion in new trade by 2040 and create 395,000 jobs through investment in clean energy exports. It's yet another important contribution highlighting the opportunities available to Australia in a decarbonising economy, but only if we seize them. That means broader action now and not squabbling over whether climate change is real, as we continue to see from those opposite. Every month, let alone year, counts in this next decade. We don't need a pamphlet from the Prime Minister; we need a policy. We don't need slogans; we need actions and outcomes. But we can hardly trust the government with this race. Look how they handled the race to secure enough vaccines. 'It's not a race', 'It's not a competition.'—infamous words from the Prime Minister. Labor, however, understands that, like securing enough vaccines and tackling COVID-19 early, it's important to secure our renewables future and get on the front foot. There is an inevitability about the world's move to net zero emissions. Australia has the capacity to be at the forefront of this shift. But, despite having an enviable capacity for both fossil fuels and renewables, which positions us as pioneers for this transition, we are hindered by an ineffective and obstinate and, frankly, incompetent government. My colleague, the member for McMahon, the shadow minister, put it bluntly last week. He said: To neglect the opportunity to become a clean energy export powerhouse would be an unparalleled public policy failure, consigning current and future generations to economic destitution. It would leave Australians picking up the scraps of the greatest economic change since the industrial revolution, at a premium. Just imagine if we'd missed the industrial revolution and all the benefits that it brought Australia! Well, under this government, that's the risk we face with this next phase. I couldn't agree more with the member for McMahon. Australia and my electorate of Lyons in particular are full of smart and hardworking people who are capable of leading this transition into an exciting economic future led by renewables. The only thing holding them back is those opposite, who seek to continually undermine public faith in renewable energy simply to score political points and to suit their own personal and political gain. In summary, Labor welcomes these bills because we called for them. The government promised and then delayed them. And, while we don't seek to hold up the passing of these bills, they would benefit from further amendments. Business needs certainty and swiftness, workers need proper workplace safety frameworks and opportunities for local communities, and workers need to be considered and included. The future is here; we just need to grasp it. 16:49 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Labor is excited about the potential of offshore wind. We know how effective it is. We know how good it is at producing zero emissions power. We know largely because Australia is so late to this party. Offshore wind has been around for years. In Europe 20 years ago, offshore wind farms were a common sight. Seriously, why has it taken so long? Finally, we're here. We've got some legislation. It's not perfect, but it's here and it's welcome. This legislation, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the associated bills, will finally allow offshore wind to take off here at home. It will establish a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area. It will allow the construction, installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure. Australians are very aware of the benefits of renewable energy. They know it's good for the country. They know it's good for their bank accounts. That's why Australia has the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar. Although this government is currently trying to take a lot of credit for that, it has nothing to do with its policy. Australia has the potential to become a solar and wind superpower—a superpower when it comes to renewable energy. We have such incredible untapped potential, and offshore wind is just one example of this. Australia is in the unique position of being both an island and a continent. We are huge and we have a huge coastline, and our coastline isn't just long; it's abundantly windy. That comes with huge potential for offshore wind power. We know that the conditions of our coasts rival those in the North Sea, where wind farms abound. We have more offshore wind resource than we could ever possibly use ourselves. Recent research by Blue Economy indicates feasible wind resources of 2,233 gigawatts of capacity off Australia's coast. Australia's entire national energy market is around 55 gigawatts. If we utilise even a fraction of that potential, we can export huge amounts of renewable green power to South-East Asia. Boris Johnson—in many ways a politician very similar to our own Prime Minister—has said that in 10 years time offshore wind will power every home in the UK. That is the potential of this technology. And let's be abundantly clear: everyone knows about this potential. It's the coalition, our government, who have been dragging their feet. There is no word for 'renewable phobia', officially, but that's the malady that afflicts those opposite. It's that malady that is afflicting the jobs opportunities in the towns and industries in this country, because of the government's pathological and ideological opposition to renewables being an important part of our sustainable and more certain energy future. Luckily, Australia's energy providers are already there. There are now more than 10 projects that have been proposed and have been waiting for the government to get on with the job of allowing them to go ahead. The Star of the South of Gippsland will power 20 per cent of Victoria's energy needs—20 per cent from one project. One single rotation of an offshore wind turbine provides as much power as an entire day of rooftop solar. These turbines turn 15 times a minute. Imagine that: all of Australia's energy problems fixed, if we just got on with it. Let's not forget that all these projects will create lots of jobs. The opportunities that come from offshore wind are abundant. These turbines need maintenance, ships to service them and people employed at the ports. There are 26,000 people already working in the offshore wind industry in the UK. It's expected that this number will grow, with an extra 70,000 jobs by 2026. To put that in perspective: the total coal industry in Australia currently employs around 52,000 people. That's before we even begin to talk about solar, hydrogen, hydro, pumped hydro and all the other renewable industries that will create an additional massive jobs boom, and, also, the advantage that will come from affordable energy for energy intensive industries. And where would these jobs be? They'd be in the regions that power Australia right now. They'd be in the Hunter, in Gippsland, in the Illawarra, in Gladstone, in La Trobe and in Central Queensland. The regions that power Australia today will be the regions that power Australia into the future. But you wouldn't know that from the Nationals. You wouldn't know that from the comments by the minister for resources. These are their communities, yet they don't want them to benefit from these huge opportunities. It's clear how beneficial offshore wind will be for Australia. We know it, the community knows it, the private sector knows it, and I'm glad that finally—finally—the government is belatedly acting on this huge opportunity. The government doesn't have to look far to figure it out. The effectiveness of wind energy can be seen just outside this building—in the capital, in my city of Canberra. It's been two years since the ACT officially became the first city outside Europe to be powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity. The ACT has managed this by offsetting its energy use via renewables, including five wind farms in resource-rich areas of the country: the Hornsdale Wind Farm in South Australia, the Ararat Wind Farm in Victoria and, just up the Federal Highway, in New South Wales, the Crookwell wind farm. Canberrans should be proud of this achievement, and the rest of Australia can draw inspiration from it. While we welcome the government's long overdue epiphany, Labor do have concerns about certain aspects of these bills—specifically, around the work health and safety framework and licensing regime. It's concerning that the government has failed to adopt a harmonised national WHS law in the bills, instead amending those laws into a regulatory minefield. Without uniform laws, there is a danger of confusion and real risk for both workers and employers. We don't want to end up with a confusing situation where a worker would be subject to three different regulatory regimes: one regime while onshore, a second while on vessel in transit and a third while on the job on an offshore project. It's such a mess that even the department, the regulator and industry stakeholders can't agree on the situation. Further consultation is clearly needed on both the content and coverage of the WHS provisions. Labor has committed to improving and harmonising the WHS regulatory frameworks covering workers in offshore clean energy. We need to get this right. Labor also calls on the government to include an amendment to ensure that benefits from these new industries flow to the communities where they are located. It is a serious concern that the bill doesn't require local benefits to be included in the merit criteria for licences. The minister of the day should be required to consider benefits for local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people when considering whether to grant an offshore electricity licence. While the government's position today is welcome, it can still do so much more. Let's not forget this is the same government that only a few short years ago argued that the sight of a wind farm was 'offensive' and a 'blight on the landscape', and the same government that has said batteries are as useful as the Big Banana and that electric vehicles will 'end the weekend'. The coalition are no climate converts. There has been no road-to-Damascus experience. The government's hostility to the renewable energy revolution sweeping the globe is unchanged. You simply can't believe anything this government says. This government loves the announcement but never follows through with its promises. Just last week Keith Pitt—the same Keith Pitt who got a promotion in exchange for the government committing to net zero—in question time tried to undermine solar energy, trotting out the Tony-Abbott-era slogan that solar doesn't work at night. The member for Mallee followed this up by claiming wind farms don't work in the dark either. Matt Canavan has floated a mortgage tax to prop up the ailing fossil fuel sector, while claiming that net zero means compulsory veganism. That's the level of foolishness this debate has sunk to inside the government. If that isn't enough, Mr Canavan and George Christensen are also in open rebellion of the Prime Minister and the government's policy, claiming they will campaign against their own party on net zero. So now Australia is facing a climate crisis, a leadership crisis and a government in crisis. We don't just drink water when it rains. We capture it and store it, and then we turn on a tap when we need it. Labor understands this. Labor understands that you need to invest in storage and battery technology to store the energy harvested in peak periods. That's why Labor has already committed to connecting up to 100,000 homes to 400 community batteries across the country. Labor will also invest $20 billion to modernise Australia's energy grid, to spur the production of cheap, clean renewable energy and keep power prices down. Labor understands the government needs the right policy settings so Australia can reap the rewards of the renewable energy boom. Instead of preparing for this change, the Morrison government has chosen inaction and, in the process, has scared off international investors. Some 2,700 clean energy jobs are estimated to already have disappeared on Mr Morrison's watch, jobs ripped away from the regional electorates the Nationals claim to champion. This tired and rudderless government has no ideas. It would rather sow fear and division than harness hope and opportunity. Yesterday the Prime Minister and the energy minister stood up in the blue room, with a nice glossy brochure, with their fancy PowerPoint. They stood up and claimed to the Australian people that they had a plan. Yet this is no plan. It was a rehash of their old non-policy. In their own words, this is based on 'existing policies' with net zero written on the front. How serious is the coalition when it comes to net zero? Clearly, not very, because yesterday they voted against it—every Liberal, every National, all the so-called modern Liberals. Minister Taylor would have us believe that laws are bad. He'd have us believe that this parliament enshrining our commitment to climate action is bad. They won't even make a real commitment. A newsflash to the minister: you are a legislator. That is the role of this parliament, to make laws, and it's time that this government did their job. The plan released yesterday was not a plan, it was a scam. Australia needs climate action now and we don't have another three years to wait. We need to end the climate wars. We need to move on as a nation. We need to do our part as a global citizen. We need to respect the science. We need to legislate these targets. It is an embarrassment that our Prime Minister will go to Glasgow to represent Australia and won't even take a new target for 2030, which will be the focus of that meeting. We are still under the old Abbott-era targets, and they're not even going to be legislated formal targets. This new plan does not even formally change those 2030 targets. This is so embarrassing, and it is disgraceful that this Prime Minister would try and gaslight the Australian people into believing that this is some sort of action. The government now claim they are committed to net zero by 2050, which is the absolute bare minimum that countries around the world are committing to. They will not enshrine this in legislation, and they have voted against it several times now in this parliament. It's shameful. It is shameful for the people in Australia who understand that we need climate action now, people who respect science, people in my electorate who contact me constantly about this. There is no issue that Canberrans contact me about more often than climate change, and many of these are young people. Our young people are feeling that the adults in this parliament have let them down. I remember learning about climate change when I was in primary school. I never would have expected, all these years later, to be standing here in parliament crying out for a government to take action on this existential crisis facing our planet, that a wealthy, developed country like Australia would not feel the need to do its bit on the international stage and that our government, a coalition government, would treat this with such a lack of seriousness that they think they can get away with an announcement and a glossy brochure. They haven't even released modelling behind it. The Treasury seems to be distancing itself from this modelling as well, saying that they haven't been much involved today. This is such an important and serious issue. The most authoritative body, the IPCC, have called this 'code red'. They have said this is our last chance to stop our world from reaching a level of warming that is beyond repair. We saw the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20 and I note that they loom large in the memory of all Canberrans and Australians. These events, that unprecedented catastrophe, will become more common in Australia and around the world if we don't take action now. I call on this government to get serious about climate action. 17:04 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie This is a debate we should have had some time ago—not just a year ago but probably more like three years ago. I heard the member for North Sydney talk about how timely the legislation was, coming in the same week the Morrison government released its pamphlet on net-zero emissions by 2050. But actually it is years overdue, as was that so-called commitment to net zero. When you have a government that pretends that the need for climate action isn't urgent and that the existing policy settings are enough, what you end up with is lost opportunities, and we had a lost opportunity with this. It's taken so long for this to come to the parliament. We also had a lost opportunity when the COVID economic response ignored any investment in renewables. By contrast to Australia, the Italian government's national COVID recovery plan allocated a total of 196 billion euros to six key areas, and one of those areas was renewables. The plan included 74.3 billion euros earmarked for a green revolution and ecological transition. I'm not even going to try to translate those figures in euros to Australian dollars, but it's a whole lot more. Proportionally, it's more than we have looked at investing, and that's shameful. It is a terrible lost opportunity. That's what we're talking about here with this legislation, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. Instead of being the renewable energy superpower that we had the potential to be by now, we are way behind. The UK already has the world's largest offshore wind generation capacity, and in October 2020 the UK government announced a target of 40 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, up from its original target of 30 gigawatts by 2030. It's good at increasing its targets, particularly its 2030 targets. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said to the Conservative Party conference this time last year: … in ten years' time, offshore wind will be powering every home in the country … This isn't some socialist government in Scandinavia; this is a Conservative British Prime Minister. He's obviously talking about a country that is not blessed with endless sunshine, but they have seen the opportunity that wind gives. We are really lucky: we have not only sunshine but wind. The global development of offshore wind resources has sped up as part of the broader shift to lower-emissions energy, yet we haven't. The EU is targeting 60 gigawatts, the US 30 gigawatts, South Korea 12 and Japan 10. All of this is expected to drive the addition of 200 gigawatts of offshore generation. I'd like you to keep that 200 gigawatts in mind. Let's turn to Australia. In Australia we have one of the longest coastlines in the world, thanks to being a pretty big island, which gives us so much potential for offshore wind. We have some of the best wind resources in the world, especially along our southern coast. Conditions along a lot of that coast rival those of the North Sea, an area which we all know has dozens of windfarms already servicing places like Denmark and Germany. We have more offshore wind resources than we could ever possibly use ourselves. Recent research by the Blue Economy CRC indicates that feasible wind resources in Australia could be around 2,233 gigawatts in capacity. That compares to what I mentioned earlier, the 200 gigawatts that the combined global capacity is targeting. So there's a massive opportunity for us. Our energy market is around 55 gigawatts, so we have a whole lot more than Australia needs, and that's why there's so much potential for exporting to South-East Asia. Yet, in spite of that, not a single offshore project has been developed in Australian waters. But, fortunately, not everybody has had their head in the sand, as the Morrison government and previous Liberal leaders have, on offshore wind. There are 10 projects that are currently being blocked by the government because we haven't had this legislation to allow the construction of offshore wind farms. The combined projects have a generation capacity of more than 25 gigawatts. For the first 10 projects, that's a significant amount. One of the key ones is the Star of the South, in Gippsland, which, when complete, will produce enough energy to cover 20 per cent of Victoria's current energy needs. It's partly because these turbines are so much bigger than the ones along Lake George, which I drive past on my way from the electorate of Macquarie to Canberra. One single turn of an offshore wind turbine can provide as much energy as a whole day's worth of rooftop solar, just because of the size and capacity of it. The turbines can turn 15 times each minute. When you add in floating turbine foundations, which can operate in very deep waters, you open access to a lot more windy, offshore locations. For us, some of the best resources are located just off the coast of regions that have traditionally been the powerhouses of Australia—Gippsland, Latrobe, Newcastle, the Hunter, Illawarra, Gladstone and Central Queensland. The positives are that these regions already have strong electricity grid infrastructure. They've got the ports and the railways, and they've got the populations for new energy and new industry. Most of these 10 proposals are situated near traditional energy regions because of the strong connections to the electricity grid. Of course, under Labor, we want to see that grid expanded. That rewiring of the grid is so that things that need to be developed away from those traditional areas can be, but these are a great place to start. It's not just that the energy created will benefit Australia; these communities and their workers will have the most to gain from a new, thriving offshore wind industry. They're going to get the jobs. The turbines need maintenance, and there's a network of ships and ports required for that maintenance. Twenty-six thousand people already work in the offshore wind industry in the United Kingdom, and 70,000 are expected to by 2026. It's a lot, isn't it? Oceanex is looking at spending $31 billion to build 7.5 gigawatts worth of offshore wind and to significantly upgrade ports, so there's investment there that will generate jobs. Green Energy Partners have two projects they're looking to start exploratory work on, off the Illawarra and off Newcastle, and they want to use Port Kembla as a construction hub. This diversification into these areas is going to allow so many new, high-skilled jobs. Paddy Crumlin, who's the national secretary of the Maritime Union, sees this opportunity to create a huge number of high-skilled jobs in Australia. He notes that we already have 'highly skilled seafarers and offshore oil and gas workers capable of constructing offshore wind projects' and that these projects can: … provide the opportunity for these workers to transition into the important work of delivering Australia's clean energy future. Labor has always known that there were jobs in renewables. The Morrison government has denied it, and they've created fear around it. They've created the fear because that is what they do best. We know that there will be jobs. In fact, one of the things that will be needed in these jobs is young workers coming through. Labor is focused, very much, on the apprentices that we will need in this renewable sector. I want to take a moment to outline the plan that we have. It isn't just a plan that says it's a plan; it actually has key steps that allow something to be implemented. There might be a good lesson in this for the government. What we know already around new-energy jobs is that three in four solar companies are already saying they're having difficulty recruiting electricians, for instance, because there are not enough candidates with specific experience. In spite of that, they're still booming, but they need more support to do even better. What Labor would like to see is a dedicated commitment, and, under a Labor government, that's what we'll have. We'll invest $10 million in a new-energy skills program. There'll be 10,000 new-energy apprenticeships available over four years. We're very specific about how many that will be each year. There will be 2,500 commencements each year from 2022-23. It's not just a hope. It's not a horizon. It's not an ambition. It's a target and a plan to achieve it. We know that there have been cuts to TAFE which have severely reduced the availability of training pathways for these new skills—particularly those which are not yet in the market at scale. We know that's another area which needs to be addressed so that there are those training capacities; that's where the extra $10 million in a new energy skills program comes in. Those are tangible things that we want to do, and we've laid out those steps for how to achieve that; that's what will be needed to really make the most of the opportunities we have for offshore wind. These bills are useful: they provide a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure and they allow the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure. But we do need to move fast on this. It is a race; we need to go from it being a piece of legislation to being enacted. In their submission to the Senate, the department responsible for this area noted that there's no provision in the legislation that mandates or sets a time frame for declaring an area. Several submissions from the business community have noted that this whole thing is long overdue and stressed the importance of moving quickly to declare zones and award licences so that they can get on with the job. This government—the Morrison government—has been stopping business from being able to get on with the job in building offshore wind farms. It's time that changed. In the time I have left, I want to touch on a couple of things that we would like to see added to these bills. We will support these bills; they're necessary and they're overdue. They'll open up the potential for renewable industries. But there are a couple of things that we'd like to see, and one is to amend one of the clauses to better incorporate electricity transmission and exports. The capacity that we have here means that this isn't just renewable energy for us—for Australians. This is for export as well. Australia can be the battery of South-East Asia, especially after we harness this opportunity with offshore wind. We need to make sure that this legislation allows that. One of the other concerns we have is about work health and safety not being expressed in this bill. The committee that held the inquiry heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the harmonised national work health and safety law into the bills. Without harmonisation, we might end up with the situation where a worker would be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second one while they're travelling out on a vessel and then a third one while they're working on the offshore renewable project. That's a terrible confusion for workers and it's terrible for employers to have to operate in that environment. Labor's national platform is very clear: we will improve and harmonise the WHS regulatory framework covering workers in offshore clean energy. Australia has had some years to get this right. During the whole feasibility period we can do this going forward and get it right so that employers and workers are not paying the price for it—and it's crucial that we do. We also need to make sure that the benefits of these offshore wind farms flow through to the onshore communities linked to them—the local businesses and the entire community should see the benefit of it. There should be something that's positive, not just something that's sucking away from a local community. But that doesn't seem to be an issue which has been addressed by the government, and it should be. We know the views of those opposite, that they think wind farms on land are ugly, that solar doesn't work in the dark and that batteries are only as useful as the Big Banana. But people out in the real world actually know what the opportunity is to have renewable energy. They want renewable energy and that's why people have put solar on their roofs. What we in this place should be doing is everything possible to make it easy for people to access renewable energy. We welcome these bills—they're well overdue and we certainly won't hold them up. But they could do with amendments and I would urge the government to support the changes that we have put forward. 17:19 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of the second reading amendment to this bill put by the member for McMahon. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 is a bill that is begrudgingly and reluctantly brought to this place by this government, a government that isn't really committed to action on climate change and isn't taking real action on climate change. What we have seen announced over the course of the last week or so is an approach by this government, a slide deck surrounding a commitment to net zero by 2050, that doesn't set out a plan with enough detail, with enough meat on the bones, to actually achieve anywhere near what it should. The government claim that their approach is technology driven. The way that members of the government speak in this place, it's almost as though they are repeating time and time again phrases that have come out of focus groups. It's almost like we are hearing phrases and incantations that we're likely to hear all the way through to the election, rather than anything with any kind of content behind it. When they say that its technologically driven, though, what it really lacks is any kind of detail when it comes to actually leading to that technology being developed, being adopted or being scaled. If we look at the slide deck that the government have developed, it is those three elements that are so critical. When you look at the waterfall diagram, which sets out how the government plan to achieve 100 per cent net abatement by 2050, it's a combination of new technology being developed, of that technology being adopted and put into practice and of that technology being scaled. The problem is that all of those three steps are going to require significant spending by the government and significant long-term investment by the government and by private sector entities. When it comes to direct spending by the government, the plan, the slide deck, that the government have developed again is extremely short on detail and almost nothing in the forward estimates in the next four years is new in the 129 slides in that deck. So all of the additional spending by the government that they expect us to believe will lead to this technological revolution is really to be taken on trust. But what I want to focus on today is the massive investment that will be needed—investment that will be so critical to major infrastructure projects such as offshore wind farms but also that will be so critical to solar, to transmission, to storage and to so many other elements of the electricity grid. And I argue that the government are doing nowhere near enough to lead to the investment being put in place at the scale that is necessary for the kinds of technology that they themselves say in their own plan is going to be needed to achieve the short, medium and long-term targets that they have set out. Government members keep coming into this place with these slogans like 'It's time for government to get out the way,' and 'We don't want to legislate a solution.' I might note that it is somewhat ironic that we are currently debating a piece of legislation being brought forward by the very government that keep telling us day in and day out that legislation is inappropriate. All of this flies in the face of the fact that the electricity market that we are trying to move towards a low-emission future is actually a creature of regulation. The National Electricity Market, which has been such an incredibly important microeconomic reform for this country over recent decades, was in fact a bipartisan creation across the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments. It was something that was created through massive microeconomic reforms going from the 1980s through to the early, middle and late 1990s. It was something that used to be a bipartisan reform, effective regulation, that led to a very effective, well-regulated national electricity market. Now, instead, we have lost that bipartisanship in this place and what we see are these resorts to hollow slogans. What we have at the moment is an incredible opportunity and an incredible need. We have a need for massive abatement not just here but also around the world. Coupled with that, we see incredible technological innovation. We also have a financial system which is experiencing a glut of savings in Australia—though superannuation and other means—and globally, and an incredibly sustained period of low interest rates. We also have an incredible abundance of natural renewable resources in Australia, both solar and wind, as has been pointed out by earlier speakers. So all of these combined—the need for abatement, the technological innovation, the financial circumstances and the incredible natural resources that we are endowed with—create this aligning of the stars. Everything is lined up. What we don't have is this government setting up the appropriate regulatory conditions that provide the right setting for people with capital to invest in projects. I don't want to go through a corporate finance lecture, but I think it is important to step through the very basics of what it is that is in the mind of an investor of large amounts of funds in long-lasting projects when they make a decision as to whether to invest or not. I would argue that the key components of that decision are: firstly, the discounted cash flow of that project, which is really the income that you expect to receive over the long-term; secondly, the rate of return of that project, which is really the discounted cash flow relative to the amount of investment that you think you have to put into the project; and, thirdly, the risk associated with the project. What I'm going to argue is that it's the combination of all of these three that is optimised by the right regulatory environment, and it is the government's inaction and inertia which is holding back investment which should be ready to go—investments that could be justified on the basis of their expected future incomes and their risk and the investment that they require. But investments that aren't getting over the line because of the unnecessary and highly inappropriate regulatory uncertainty. Let's look first at this notion of discounted cash flow, which is actually just a fancy way of saying what is a project's expected future earnings. And it's necessary to discount those expected earnings back to current dollars in order to make a sensible comparison between those future earnings and what it is you've got to put upfront. As I said before, we are experiencing an incredible opportunity. We have interest rates at a level that is at a multiple-century low. So, we have a glut of global savings, we have huge amounts of capital looking for projects to invest in and we have incredibly low interest rates, so, when it comes to the discounted cash flow component of a decision being made by an entity with large amounts of funds to invest, you don't get better times than we have right now. Let's look at the other component of what an investor might be thinking about, which is the risk component. There are a number of elements of risk with large projects. One is construction risk. Fortunately, when it comes to renewables projects, whether it be an offshore wind farm or a solar farm, generally the construction risk is relatively manageable—not zero, but generally relatively manageable—and certainly much lower than for many other kinds of infrastructure like rail tunnels or road tunnels through brown field sites or very large cities. So construction risk is quite manageable. Where we find significant risk is regulatory risk. Again, I go back to the notion that it's entirely inappropriate in the context of electricity markets to say that the right approach to facilitate investment is to say: 'Stand back. Get out of the way.' It's a completely absurd way to describe the last 30 years of regulatory reform when it comes to the electricity market. The 1980s and the 1990s were all about bringing Australia into line with world's best practice when it came to national electricity regulation. It was all about setting up an environment in which long-term investors in transmission networks had the confidence that they were going to receive an appropriate rate of return. It was all about setting up the rules of the market so that generators were bidding in in such a way that they were confident that over the life term of the generation asset that they would get a reasonable rate of return. It was only with those appropriate regulatory settings that private sector entities and indeed public sector entities, but particularly private sector entities, would make the appropriate investments. And that's exactly the situation we find ourselves in now. So rather than stepping back, rather than saying we need less legislation, rather than saying government should get out of the way and certainly rather than continued inertia, what we need at the moment is to modernise the National Electricity Market further. This is something unfortunately the state government have been having to take the lead on. We look at things like renewable energy zones and other areas of the National Electricity Market that require significant reform, such as the way in which storage is treated. That is something which is going to be absolutely critical if we are going to both encourage investment in large-scale renewable generation and achieve stability in the grid. But those opposite have no interest in that. They have no interest in the hard work of connecting the huge amount of money that is waiting to be invested in renewable projects and actually getting them to occur. What that requires is the hard work and the detailed work of improving our regulatory structures, rather than the uncertainty of a government that doesn't appear to be at all—and isn't in reality—committed to real action on climate change and isn't committed to the hard work of ongoing reform. Let's look at some of the uncertainty that investors face. What are the market dynamics going to be in the future? As more and more renewable generation comes online, that leads to a degree of uncertainty for investors in terms of what the structure of generation is going to be. What are the bidding strategies of different generators going to be? The market dynamics of the future generation pool are very complex and uncertain, particularly when trying to imagine how that's going to be in 20 years time. Indeed, the overarching structure of the electricity market is something that long-term investors would be very concerned about, and that's one reason why the very belated commitment of this government to net zero, when so many other governments around the world committed to it years ago, is so problematic. So there are all of these issues that would be preying on the minds of long-term investors. Let's look at different types of assets, to get a sense of what the challenges are in electricity. We've seen over recent years the prices of toll roads and ports go through the roof, and these are, understandably, very attractive assets because the reliability of future flows of income is very steady. But, when it comes to electricity markets, there is considerably more complexity and considerably more uncertainty, and that's why it's so incumbent on government to be continuously improved the regulatory structure so as to be doing all that it can to facilitate investment flows. It's not enough to put, in a slide deck, 'We are going to assume that 40 per cent of future abatement is going to be achieved by a technology road map,' when you have no realistic, no concrete, no detailed steps as to how you're actually going to link big investors, serious international investors, serious Australian investors with very long term perspectives, to risky investments, and facilitate those investments occurring in practice? That was the kind of bipartisan reform that occurred in the eighties and nineties, and it's tragic that it's failing to occur, as we speak, because this government is all about hollow mantras and not about serious reform. That's why we're seeing, for example, the amount of investment in renewable energy projects dropping from 51 projects worth $10.7 billion in 2018 to 29 projects worth $4.5 billion in 2019. So it's not enough to say in some slide deck, 'Technology's going to get us there,' because scaling things up and actually adopting technology is going to require improving and updating and modernising our regulatory framework. I want to simply add the next layer, which is that of course it's not just about the jobs in construction and ongoing jobs in all of these renewable projects; it's about the many other jobs that they will create and facilitate in the rest of the economy. My electorate of Fraser has some of the most sophisticated advanced manufacturers in Australia—firms like Bell Environmental, who are producing cutting-edge emergency response vehicles for civilian and military clients. Of course, Victoria is home to a considerable aluminium smelter, which is extremely energy hungry. It is these firms, which employ tens of thousands of people around Australia, that are going to require not just cheap energy but reliable energy. It's firms like these that are going to rely upon ongoing investment in major renewables projects. It's firms like these that are going to rely upon the National Electricity Market being modernised, not being avoided, not being treated like some kind of rhetorical joke. That's why the Albanese government is doing the serious work. That's why we have the rewiring the nation policy, which is going to invest $20 billion into transmission, which is going to be critically important to underpinning these major offshore wind projects, going into the future. We need serious reform in this place, not hollow mantras. 17:34 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise today to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and accompanying bills. These bills will introduce a regulatory regime to enable construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore electricity infrastructure. I will pause to note that in certain circumstances the Morrison government is happy to introduce regulation and legislation; it just likes to pick and choose which ones it does. The framework is long overdue. Energy developers have been waiting for the certainty this will provide. Subject to sensible amendments, these bills should be passed without delay. The purpose of the framework—and, of course, I support that there be a framework, because it does the job it needs to do in giving certainty—is for the establishment of an offshore wind energy industry in Australia that will also support projects like the Marinus Link and Sun Cable. Offshore wind energy, in particular, has remarkable potential to generate jobs, bolster and diversify energy supply, drive down electricity prices, improve grid reliability and lower greenhouse gas emissions. This would be a win-win-win. Whilst onshore wind now accounts for only 10 per cent of Australia's power, to date we are lagging so far behind other nations in developing our offshore wind capacity. For example, in the United Kingdom they've been developing their industry since 2007 and they already have over 10 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity installed. Prime Minister Johnson has put expanding the industry at the centre of his 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. The UK is aiming for 40 gigawatts offshore by 2030. This year Denmark greenlit the biggest offshore project in the world—a 28 billion-euro artificial energy island that will power three million homes. That is visionary and ambitious. Denmark currently generates a remarkable 40 per cent of its electricity from wind power. Australia needs to catch up. Australia's wind resources are some of the best in the world. We have 60,000 kilometres of coastline and high-capacity factors in excess of 80 per cent in some areas. Much of these resources are situated close to existing transmission lines and port infrastructure, so there is enormous potential to develop a substantial industry. Blue Economy has estimated Australia could support over 2,200 gigawatts of capacity, which is more than our current energy demand and more than enough to make us a renewable energy superpower—which should be our aim. Traditionally wind energy has been expensive, but that is changing; with economies of scale, research and development, and competitive tendering mechanisms, offshore wind may cost less than onshore wind in the future. Developers see this opportunity. There are 12 offshore wind projects with a combined capacity of 25 gigawatts proposed in Australia already. One project off Gippsland, the Star of the South, could be worth $6 billion for their regional economy and could generate 3,000 jobs over its lifetime. This project would also support up to 20 per cent of the state's energy needs—the equivalent of 1.2 million homes. This is a huge benefit. The irony is that many critics—and I should note the Deputy Prime Minister's comments in question time some days ago—will say we should have offshore wind off for Warringah. The truth is: these developments will provide communities with enormous potential for industrial development. We need to put the right technologies in the right places, where there is need, demand and workforce. Beyond Zero Emissions's analysis has found that developing offshore wind would revitalise industry in regional hubs. They projected that Newcastle, for example, could attract $28 billion in capital investment and $11 billion in revenue by 2032, and generate 34,000 jobs. Surely this is the type of project that should be embraced, not crazy projects like gas off the coast of Newcastle, like PEP-11. AEMO has indicated that other areas like north-west Tasmania, Gippsland and the Illawarra have the same potential and could support many gigawatts of offshore wind energy each. Developing these resources is essential, as we will need to provide workers in those areas with real alternative employment in sectors other than fossil fuel mining, as mines and power plants retire. Blue economy projects could generate up to 8,000 jobs per annum from 2030 by developing our wind energy resources to the highest level. But more and can and should be done to support the renewable energy sector so that we reach our climate goals. ClimateWorks in its landmark Decarbonisation Futures report has modelled that in a scenario where we would decrease emissions by up to 50 per cent by 2030—and this is very real and very possible—and reach net zero by 2050 we will have to reach 75 per cent renewable by 2030, and sadly there was none of that detail in the government's plan slideshow that was announced yesterday. We can and should aim higher. We have the potential and we can exceed the targets. It would require policy support and shoring up investment confidence. The Clean Energy Council and the Clean Energy Outlook Confidence Index reported in July that investor confidence has decreased since December 2020. The report put this down to grid connection issues, underinvestment in network capacity and transmission, unhelpful and unpredictable government interventions and future market design uncertainty. Sadly, none of this was addressed by the Morrison government yesterday. As a result, in August, the Clean Energy Council reported that there has been a loss of jobs in this sector due to a corresponding slowdown in financial commitments for renewable projects. This bill is a good development. It shows what positive government intervention and support can do. But we must look to the government to act in so many other areas. The government, for example, should drop its misguided Kurri Kurri gas plant obsession. This is a $660 million mistake that won't support liability or lower electricity prices. It will barely be used. It will spook investors and should be scrapped. The government should also drop plans for their gas-fired recovery and focus on a clean recovery, developing renewable energy capacity at the centre of any plan. The Energy Security Board has created considerable uncertainty with energy developers and investors in propagating the options of a post-2025 market design for the National Electricity Market. Of course the federal government has endorsed this, because it's ultimately a coal keeper; this is just a means and design to keep coal in the system. This policy could prolong the life of ageing coal-fired and gas-fired generators. We've heard in the environment and energy committee inquiry into dispatchable generation that coal-fired generator owners like Delta Electricity are very much expecting that that will be its use and that will be its purpose. The final design of the market must have at its centre a decarbonisation goal and cannot unnecessarily give thermal generators a new lease on life. We must understand who will bear the cost and what effect it will have on reliability and affordability. This will ultimately be a tax on the everyday energy user. We cannot talk about energy without putting it in the context of our greater priorities and what we must do. We absolutely must address the environmental aspects and our need to decarbonise rapidly. In the context of this offshore wind project, we also need to make sure they have adequate environmental safeguards for any offshore development. As drafted, the bill requires a license holder to submit a site management plan to NOPSEMA, but this will not necessarily address all environmental impacts. Instead, licensees just have to comply with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and regulations under that act. We know that the EPBC Act is incredibly limited in the sense that it won't encompass all marine impacts. Some matters are just not protected. There is no visibility on what those potential regulations are and therefore does not appear to have any environmental assessment requirement. In contrast, in the United Kingdom offshore projects are required to undergo a strategic environmental assessment detailing possible environmental impacts and remedies. This is a best practice and holistic way of addressing all impacts. Strategic environmental assessments should be triggered before declaring an area suitable for infrastructure. It would ensure that only appropriate and low-impact areas are chosen and that decisions can be made before any investment timewise or financially for a project proponent. It's an industry where people are thinking about the future of steel production and coalmining in that area and looking to the future. Well, here's an example of something that provides a bridge to the future and an opportunity for manufacturing this industry within Port Kembla and for servicing the industry through the port, creating jobs that are sustainable into the future for people living within that community. This bill establishes a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area, beyond the three-nautical-mile limit. The bill allows for the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore wind and electricity infrastructure. Around the world, there's more than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity now in operation, and that's expected to rise to 80 gigawatts by 2030. By comparison, Australia's entire market is 55 gigawatts. There are more than a dozen offshore wind proposals in Australia, and these promise enormous capacity and tens of thousands of jobs. Importantly, as I mentioned, these proposals are alongside traditional energy industries and regions. There are some issues associated with this that need to be dealt with through the regulatory framework, and Labor has been campaigning for many years now for the government to fix those issues with that regulatory framework. It's regrettable that the benefits to be gained have been delayed by the government. The government promised that the legislative settings and frameworks were aimed to be in place and operational by mid-2021, yet once again they didn't deliver. This bill's major provisions will allow the energy minister to declare a certain area as suitable for offshore electricity infrastructure and to establish a licensing regime for offshore electricity activities. Importantly, it requires developers to pay bonds to cover the estimated cost of decommissioning their infrastructure, which is important given the recent difficulties with the Northern Endeavour oil facility; requires management plans for each project, covering environmental management, work health and safety, infrastructure integrity, emergency management, consultation and financial security; designates the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, or NOPTA, as the registrar for licensing schemes; designates the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA, as the regulator of offshore electricity infrastructure; and provides both NOPTA and NOPSEMA with compliance and enforcement powers to carry out these functions. So these are important regulatory changes that this bill will bring into operation. The second bill, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021, provides for the cost of the new functions of NOPTA and NOPSEMA to be recovered from industry, consistent with current arrangements for offshore oil and gas. This is a plan that is supported but is long overdue. When you think about it, given the size of the Australian coastline and the fact that we are an island, it's almost criminal that this government hasn't thought of this and introduced these regulatory changes before, because the industry has been there. The demand for this has been there. The innovation is there. The investment is there. The job opportunities are there. The only thing that hasn't been there is the willingness from the Morrison government to implement it. That's because, as we've seen this week, there is still a group of individuals—predominantly in the National Party but many in the Liberals as well—who don't believe that climate change is real, unfortunately. They don't believe that it is happening, and they have held up the development of what could have been one of the most important and largest renewable energy industries in the world, with unlimited potential for investment, for technology advancement and for job creation. This has been held up by a handful of people who don't believe in climate change and continue to think that we can continue with outdated old polluting industries well into the next 20 or 30 years without having to make any changes. That is so backward and such a missed opportunity not only for our country but, importantly, for the regions, as I mentioned, where these jobs will be created in the future. Thankfully, the government has finally come to the party but this is not enough. This alone will not help get us to net zero by 2050. What is needed is a fair dinkum commitment to ensuring that there are measures in place, not only to reduce pollution amongst heavy emitters but also to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, the development of a hydrogen industry in this country, the development of solar farms, the exporting of the energy that is generated through solar and wind farms. The opportunities are boundless. They are boundless yet they are being stifled by this government. Hopefully, these bills and what has been announced this week will make them wake up that it is now time to put aside the climate wars, it is now time to stop weaponising climate change in election campaigns, it is now time to do what is in the interest of our nation for our kids' futures and it is now time to provide opportunities that renewable energy projects like those that will come as a result of this regulation will bring. 18:16 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I am glad for the opportunity to speak in support of these bills, particularly the second reading amendment moved by the member for McMahon. The bills, the legislation, are just one small part of the changes needed to enable development of a sensible renewable energy industry in Australia—in this case, offshore wind power—for the first time. As the member for Kingsford Smith noted, it comes terribly late. Deep into the third term, eight years after this government was first elected, that is characteristic of them, a government that does not seem to have any ability to focus on the future, to respond to big challenges by guiding change in the national interest. This is a government that, as Australians will have watched in dismay, over the last couple of weeks has been dragged in the most chaotic and laughable fashion to the most unconvincing and pathetic form of commitment to net zero by 2050. There is not any doubt that Australia needs leadership on climate change and energy, that we need relief from the burdens and the costs of climate change. We need the benefits of lower energy costs, reduced pollution and new jobs from the renewable energy and green tech economy. But all we get is an empty blue pamphlet and slogans. Unfortunately, the Morrison-Joyce government still thinks it can take Australians for fools, and that's what we will see more of; we have seen enough already. It thinks it can do nothing under the cover of a glossy pamphlet and a silly slogan, and I think that is really sad. It's a great trust to be on that side of the parliament and to have the steering and the stewardship of this nation, so it is a great shame when that responsibility is treated so shabbily. These bills are not perfect. Labor is calling on the government to call up some of the shortcomings in the consultation requirements for declaring areas that will host offshore wind in workplace health and safety, harmonised licensing and a few other things but at least it is finally a step forward in making offshore wind possible as a source of renewable energy in Australia. It is strange that this week on multiple occasions the Deputy Prime Minister has accused the opposition, this side of the House, of being in favour of legislation. It's a strange accusation. We would own up to that. We are in favour of legislation as parliamentarians. In other parts of the world, such as in the United States, we are commonly referred to as 'legislators'. That is actually what people refer to parliamentarians as—legislators. We are in favour of legislation. It is one of the mechanisms of good government, such as it is—or as it isn't, in the case of those opposite. The principal function of this place is to consider, debate, amend and pass or, sometimes, block legislation, and the idea that legislation is somehow an imposition on the Australian people is a joke. In this case it's eight years in, three terms in, that the government has finally bothered to pass legislation that enables Australia to take up offshore wind, which provides greater choice in investment, greater diversity in renewable energy, lower costs, lower emissions and new jobs. I'll say some more about jobs, in particular, later on. It's bizarre that a country like Australia is yet to dip its toe in the water of offshore wind. Offshore wind provides 35 gigawatts of energy worldwide. It's projected to grow to 80 gigawatts by 2030. The US Biden administration has a target of installing 30 gigawatts alone by 2030. The UK gets 10 per cent of its power from offshore wind. It has the most installed capacity of any nation. It has a target of getting to 40 gigawatts of installed capacity by 2040. Thanks to the policies of the previous Labor government, Australia is a leader in terms of household solar. When we came to government, in 2007, there were only 12,000 household units in the entire country. By the time we left, I think it was 1.3 or 1.4 million. Now, more than 2.8 million households, or something like one in four households, have household solar. That is thanks to the forward-looking vision and approach of the Labor government and its enabling policies. But right now we don't have a single watt of installed offshore wind capacity. It is a very reliable and affordable form of renewables. The UK shows that. As an interesting comparison, the strike price of wind power in the UK is half the price set under the power purchase agreement for the new Hinkley C reactor. I say 'new', but it hasn't been delivered yet. It's 10 years past its delivery date. It's four or five times over budget, but, if it ever gets delivered, it will be based on a 35-year power purchase agreement, the strike price of which is twice the price of wind power in the UK market as a whole. It's bizarre and sad that people on the government side, especially the members of the National Party, pour scorn on renewable energy while they are in this unending—and happily, at this stage, unrequited—dewy-eyed love affair with nuclear power, which is the slowest, most expensive and most inflexible form of power generation. It's an industry that, after 70 years, still hasn't figured out how to store its own highly toxic waste. We have uranium mines in this country that appear incapable of being properly decommissioned, with radioactive material leaking into the environment and no funds left to clean up the mess. At the same time, we have an industry, worldwide, that has still not, after 70 years, delivered a single facility capable of storing high-level nuclear waste. But the Nationals and the Liberals are deeply in love with this redundant technology. Maybe they could have put their atomic crush aside for five minutes over the last eight years and get on with a proven, cheap, renewable, clean energy technology, like offshore wind, which this legislation finally opens the door to. Australia's wind resources have been assessed as being comparable to the North Sea, which is presently the world's leading offshore wind generation zone. We, Labor, have been pushing for years for the creation of a regulatory framework that would allow offshore wind. It's not surprising that there are already 12 proponents just waiting for this door to be opened. If that doesn't show you not only the potential in offshore wind but also the quite unbelievable obstructive capacity of those opposite, I don't know what does. We hear this bleating all the time about 'technology, not taxes'. Here's a proven technology, which is the largest source of renewable power for a number of countries—particularly in the northern hemisphere—and we haven't even been able to have a go at it, because of the failures of those opposite. I want to take the opportunity to talk about the jobs potential that Australia could tap into if we had a government that took climate change seriously and if we had a government that was prepared to lean in on renewable energy and clean, low-carbon, net zero technology. To go back to the UK example: currently, offshore wind employs 26,000 people in the UK, and industry estimates predict that will rise to 70,000, on the basis of their present offshore wind targets. Why is there no jobs transition planning under this government? If you go to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources website there's literally nothing on this topic under the heading 'Australia's climate change strategies'. There's not one thing on that website that goes to the questions of job creation, skills development, transferability and all the things that a responsible government would do as we go through the energy transformation that the globe is experiencing and which we are experiencing, and which will only increase and gather pace in time to come. If we look at the government's 2021-2022 budget, the skills and training section is entitled 'Building skills for the future'. There's nothing in it—nothing—about the transition of Australian workers into the new low-carbon jobs of the future. The Climate Council has estimated that there could be 8,000 jobs in Australia in offshore wind by 2030. We can add that to the estimation by Accentia Technologies in the report commissioned by the Future Battery Industry, Cooperative Research Centre, a CRC which the government funds. That report estimates that by 2030 Australia could develop an energy, metal and battery related industry worth $7.4 billion and employing nearly 35,000 people. That's despite the government; when it signed up to the Paris agreement, it signed up to an obligation which states that countries must take: … into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities, … There is no sign of any such work being done by this government—none! We know that there has been no national energy policy and we know that there's no comprehensive climate policy, so maybe it shouldn't come as a shock that there's no energy and climate job strategy. The UK has one and the American jobs plan has six separate initiatives that are directed at new clean energy, electrification, zero-carbon manufacturing and the associated jobs that they will all involve. They look at all the things that we would want; they look at skills gaps and needs; training requirements; and transferability—all those kinds of things. The UK's Green Jobs Taskforce, as part of Prime Minister Johnson's Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, has put out a report which states: As we look ahead to publishing our comprehensive net zero strategy and hosting COP26 in the autumn, we must focus on how we invest in the UK's most important asset—our workforce—so that people have the right skills to deliver the net zero transition and thrive in the jobs it will create. …   …   … … we are taking the first steps to ensure that green jobs are good quality, that they can be accessed by people of all backgrounds and in all parts of the country, and that workers in sectors and industries undergoing change can reapply their skills and expertise towards this new challenge. Hear, hear! Imagine that? Imagine a government being sensible enough, responsible enough and forward-looking enough to get on with a bit of serious work like that, to prepare young Australians and existing workers for the change that's happening? But not under this government. The UK approach is focused on building pathways into the new energy sector. They have a Green Careers Launchpad and they're doing what we would expect: collaborative work between industry, unions, government itself and the education and training sector to identify skill needs and gaps to assess transferable skills. In terms of the potential for workers to transition and draw on transferable skills, I'll point out that the World Economic Forum has identified that of the top 10 skill sets required in the net zero carbon economy only three are industry specific. So the potential to achieve that kind of transferability and to support that is pretty significant. In relation to offshore wind: some of these skills include asset and project management, and engineering and technical skills. These cover disciplines like mechanical and electrical; control instrumentation; and blade and turbine technicians. There's the full range of scientific qualifications: marine biology, geophysics, hydrology and oceanography, not to mention a range of maritime and seafaring roles. Australia has a fantastic offshore workforce as it stands—a maritime and offshore resource workforce that's well-suited and should be adapted to these kinds of opportunities as they come on stream. As we pass these bills we'll finally open the way for Australia to leverage our enormous advantages when it comes to offshore wind. We should have, but we don't have, a framework in place to make sure that young Australians are geared up for the jobs of the future. We have no framework to support workers who want to move into these industries. In fact, vocational training has gone backwards under this government. After eight years and three terms, having tripled government debt and having put $100 billion of new spending on the tick, there are 150,000 fewer apprenticeships today than when Labor was in government. We know one of the greatest opportunities for job creation is the net zero economy, which includes not only offshore wind but also large-scale and household solar, hydropower, geothermal and wave energy, hydrogen technology and the full suite of activities within the battery industry, from energy mineral development to manufacture and system design. That's why we've announced the New Energy Apprenticeships program, to ensure that Australians, especially young Australians, take these opportunities. That's why we've committed $100 million to create 10,000 New Energy Apprenticeships over four years, starting in 2022-23. That's why we've announced a Buy Australia policy that will further support new Australian enterprises engaged in the clean energy transformation. Australians watching this debate will wonder why it has taken us so long, and the answer is pretty simple: because when you have a government that only sees climate change as the altar on which to commit internal sacrifices of whoever they want to get rid of next, you're not going to get sensible policy, and that is a great shame for this country. 18:31 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Labor will support this bill for a very simple reason: because we have been arguing for it. It makes total sense that when you consider where Australia is positioned—when you consider the potential energy generation through this initiative; when, as was reflected on by the member for Fremantle, you look at a comparable site in terms of the North Sea, which is considered the largest geographic source of wind energy, and we can compare to that quite favourably; and when you look at what is happening in terms of generation internationally. Internationally, at the moment, there is approximately 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity that's currently in operation. But you can expect that within the next 10 years to jump up to 80 gigawatts and by 2050 will go to 2,000 gigawatts. So, (1) internationally, people have recognised the opportunity that exists; (2) in Australia we know that we are in a really good position; (3) if you compare in relative terms what we currently generate as energy to meet the needs of Australians—it's 55 gigawatts—you get a sense about where the opportunity presents itself with offshore wind. This is why Labor has been saying it is mad for us not to think about this and act on it. It is mad not to act on it, because, from our point of view, and particularly from my own point of view (1) when you take onboard the fact that there is this huge demand—about a dozen propositions or proposals ready to seize this opportunity—and (2) when you look at what is behind that if that happens, which is a huge jobs opportunity for the country, particularly in manufacturing, and (3) when we can use what we are very good at producing in this nation—steel—on those projects, we'll have renewable energy using Australian content manufactured by Australian workers. We have got a very proud heritage and tradition of steel manufacturing. We'll be able to set up the construction phase, and then the operation and the maintenance all along that chain can be provided by Australian industry and Australian workers. It's an opportunity that should be seized and hasn't been. Why? Because, yet again, we've got a government that's—quite unusually, as they're usually quick to announce and slow to deliver—slow to announce and deliver. They have been shamed and prodded into this bill, and so have finally brought the legislation before us. I want to emphasise this point: even in question time today the government remarked upon the number of homes in this country that have solar panels installed upon them and reflected on the fact that Australian technology is embedded within that, that Australian technology has driven that. But they omitted to reference the fact that a lot of that manufacturing capability was offshore. We didn't hold onto it. We didn't find ways to seize that opportunity in a way that would have enriched our nation; we just offshored that opportunity. It's one of the reasons why we argued, successfully, for the establishment of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to help make technology that may not have got market backing early on something that is a proposition worth investing in. In what we have put forward as the Labor Party—the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund—we have targeted renewables and low-emissions technology, specifically looking at the manufacturing opportunity that exists. If the commercialisation is supported through the CEFC you can have the opportunity then followed up with investment in manufacturing capability to ensure it happens. There were a lot of regional based manufacturers who wanted to get involved in terms of wind turbines, and they missed out on opportunities because the government didn't require local content on some of the power purchase agreements managed by Snowy Hydro. This put huge pressure on a regionally based employer, Keppel Prince, in Portland in regional Victoria, where hundreds of jobs were put under pressure because investors didn't want to use locals to help build the wind turbines that would be used for generating energy that would go to Snowy Hydro. This is a scandal, and this is why Labor has argued in its Buy Australian proposal a 10-point plan to use the power of government procurement to help provide opportunity for local industry. When you combine what's being argued here with what we can see elsewhere, this will provide a huge jobs bonanza for locals; it is very important for us to line up all the resources to back that in. We see that good climate policy is good jobs policy. That's where we should be going. Particularly in terms of this, we should be looking at using Australian steel that is made here, with Australian manufacturing capability that puts it together, that then gets constructed by Australians, that can generate huge amounts of energy for Australia offshore in a way that we are missing out on at the moment. It is a win all round for us. That's why we support the bills and why we urge that this happen. I come back to this point: why did it take so long? The reason it took so long is: this is a government that has fought against this very issue, of finding ways to generate power in a cleaner, more sustainable way. The rest of the world got it. These people didn't. They saw an opportunity not for jobs but for politicking—their jobs, not the broader community's. They wanted to find a way to score points. The problem is: on that side the resistance is baked in so deep within the coalition, within the Liberal and National parties, that they miss the opportunities that are presented, due to the scepticism that exists on their side and the refusal to acknowledge that we've got to deal with this broader issue in terms of climate change and the fact if we do deal with it we will have job opportunities that could flow for Australian industry as a result. I feel, in particular in this debate, bad for one group of people who get this, who know that this has to happen and that something needs to be done—that is, Liberal voters who recognise that the issue of climate change is serious. They expect action on it, but they back a government that doesn't take it seriously. For Liberal voters who understand that climate change has to be dealt with, their views are not respected by the government that they vote in. I feel bad for those Liberal voters, because they are being disrespected. They have provided support and they have been disrespected by Liberal governments for years. So I make this point: what can those voters do to make sure that that disrespect doesn't continue? Those voters—those Liberal voters who expect serious action on climate changes—reside in big numbers in the seats of Higgins, Wentworth, Mackellar, North Sydney, Kooyong, Brisbane and even Goldstein. The members for those seats like to parade their green credentials in the local area but consistently stand against taking any action on this. We have had two opportunities for them to legislate on net zero, and they would not do it. They wouldn't seriously back anything other than a PowerPoint presentation—because that's what we've got and what the Prime Minister is taking to Glasgow. The commitment within that presentation has already been laughed at by the international community, who shake their heads at the fact that this government won't do the right thing in terms of what's required for Glasgow. We'll be an international embarrassment. Those Liberal voters in all those seats want this taken seriously and expect their representatives to do the right thing, but they won't. These seats that I mentioned—Higgins, Wentworth, Mackellar, North Sydney, Kooyong, Brisbane and Goldstein—are all prized assets in the Liberal Party, and you've got to get existential on those assets. You have to make them sweat. I say to those Liberal voters who want to be respected on the issue of climate change: the only way you're going to get respect is to vote them out. You've got to vote out Katie Allen in Higgins. You've got to vote out Tim Wilson in Goldstein. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The assistant minister on a point of order? Mr Tim Wilson IMW Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The shadow minister should refer to members by their appropriate titles. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the assistant minister, and I would remind the member for Chifley to refer to members by their correct title. I would also ask the member for Chifley to return to the substance of the bill. Mr HUSIC 91219 It's a cognate debate, Deputy Speaker, as has been emphasised a number of times, and it's been a wide-ranging one, as speakers have emphasised. I'm going make the point that Liberal voters who take this issue seriously should vote out the members for Goldstein, Kooyong, North Sydney, Higgins and Mackellar. They should vote out those people who disrespect their concern about climate change. They want serious action to be taken on this, and they are constantly just used and abused by these members who come here off the back of those prized Liberal safe seats and do nothing. Until you vote these people out, you will not get the Liberal Party to shake off its stupor and its deeply ingrained antipathy to dealing with this properly. This is why the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, on losing the leadership, remarked about how bad it was that in the modern Liberal Party they couldn't see that they needed to act on climate change and that there was an economic imperative to do so and an opportunity to do so. This member has a poster describing him as a modern Liberal, but a modern Liberal is still a Neanderthal when it comes to this issue. He and all these other members won't take this issue seriously. So, if you want them to take it seriously, you've got to vote them all out. You've got to put Independents in those seat. I totally get it. While we have a lot of common ground with those Liberal voters who take these issues seriously, they're not going to vote for us, but they absolutely will vote for an Independent. They'll recognise, just as they did in Warringah, that that's the way to shake things up and get people moving. The only time you saw the whites in the eyes of the Liberal Party was when that happened. Then you'll see things like this bill taken seriously. You will see action to ensure that renewable energy is supported with investment, with a regulatory framework and with resources put behind it. The government can work collaboratively with businesses and regional economies to make sure that they're looked after and that it isn't just weaponised. But, as I said, until you see this ridding, this deep-seated antipathy to taking this action and the constant politicking on it, nothing's going to happen. You've got to give the member for Goldstein a career break, with the members for Higgins, Wentworth, Mackellar, North Sydney, Kooyong and Brisbane. Teach the Liberal Party a lesson, change the dynamics of politics in this country and make sure we take this issue seriously, and see us get not only a reduction in emissions but also a boost in the economy. 18:45 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton [by video link] I'm happy to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the two associated bills in this cognate debate. I do so from Sunnybank on Turrbal and Yuggera lands, and I commend the member for Chifley for his passionate contribution as always. My attitude to these bills can be summed up by the phrase 'better late than never'. For some time now, as earlier speakers have indicated, Labor has been calling for legislation to unlock the benefit of offshore renewable energy, particularly offshore wind generation. It's a pity that the benefits of harvesting offshore energy have been delayed due to the inaction of the Morrison government. Don't forget that it's the coalition government that set up and still funds a national windfarm commission. Remember that? It's now called the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, someone who can now take complaints not only about wind but also about solar energy—if the wind doesn't blow at night, perhaps, or if the sun stops shining after it goes down. Maybe the wind can't find the turbines in the dark. That's a job that's still being funded by Mr Morrison at more than $200,000 per year. It's hardly surprising, given that inaction is this government's default position when it comes to renewable energy. Offshore energy generation is already happening in other parts of the world, and we are way behind. More than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity is being generated right now. By 2030 it will be around 80 gigawatts, and by 2050 it's expected to increase to 2,000 gigawatts. For those non-electricians out there, a gigawatt is a billion watts. That's about 17 million 60-watt lightbulbs, to put it in the old speak. To put that amount of energy generation into a broader context, Australia's entire national energy market is around 55 gigawatts. Australia as a continent and an island nation has one of the longest coastlines in the world. The potential for offshore wind generation is more than we could ever use ourselves, even if we expand our domestic manufacturing as Labor plans to do. Offshore energy generation is an export opportunity, particularly in terms of South-East Asia and the billions of people moving into the middle class in that part of the world. As we see, time and time again, with this government they are always playing catch-up. Remember back in 2019 when Prime Minister Morrison said during the election campaign that electric vehicles would 'end the weekend'? Just this week, the Hertz CEO said electric vehicles are now mainstream. Two years on, things have changed. Hertz Global has just purchased 100,000 electric vehicles for its rental car fleet. Business all around the world is ignoring the out-of-touch Liberals and getting on with the job of being in the 21st century. The Prime Minister's vision for the future doesn't extend beyond his next meeting with his Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Nationals. He couldn't see the potential for electric vehicles just two years ago, and now he's being held to ransom by the Nationals. Over the past week we've heard government members say—I kid you not—that solar doesn't work in the dark. And the resources minister, in defending his anti-renewables stance, said it was a fundamental fact that solo doesn't work without the sun, completely forgetting the role that modern batteries play in modern grids. It's hard to take this lot seriously but, unfortunately, they are currently running our nation—and they will be representing our nation's interests in Glasgow, on that world stage. How can any of these government ministers in 2021—and I note that the resources minister has just been elevated to the cabinet—seriously talk about solar energy generation or wind generation being reliant on the sun and not mention batteries? Prime Minister Morrison once said of the South Australia-Elon Musk joint battery: It is so at the margin it barely is worthy of a mention. He then compared it to the Big Banana and the Big Prawn—putting politicking before jobs; putting The Nationals before the nation. Does this government think that the 100,000 electric vehicles that Hertz has just bought will stop working when it rains? Will cars stop in the middle of the road because there is no sun? Seriously; do these people go around with their heads in the sand? Newsflash for the coalition: batteries store the energy from solar panels and batteries store the energy from wind generation. Yes, you need the sun and you need wind to make the energy, and then it is stored in the battery or pumped hydro and other options when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. To be technical, experts say that Africa and Australia have the same amount of global horizontal radiation, which is one measure of solar coverage, and Australia has the greatest amount of direct normal irradiance, the other measure of solar coverage. In other words, Australia actually has more solar coverage than any other continent on earth. We have more than enough sunshine to make, store, use and export solar energy. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency says wind energy is one of the lowest-cost sources of new electricity supply in Australia along with utility-scale solar PV. We have sun and wind in abundance in this country, and that equals an amazing opportunity and it equals jobs, especially here in Queensland where we have some good steady winds at night—something to complement the Roaring 40s wind turbines down in South Australia, Melbourne and Tasmania. Because the world is hungry for new sources of energy, this climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. The coalition's chaos and division on energy over the past eight years has seen too many Australians miss out. Under Prime Minister Morrison's watch, 2,700 clean energy jobs have disappeared. Workers who have powered Australia for generations are getting left behind by a Prime Minister who won't lift a finger when it comes to their rights at work and won't do anything for their future. When it comes to net zero emissions, we are still not sure what the Liberal and National parties are committed to, because they are not going to introduce any legislation to test the commitment of their party rooms—their very divided party rooms—and they won't release their modelling. But Labor are committed to net zero emissions by 2050, as are all of the states and territories, leading businesses and industry and agriculture groups, and 130 countries share the same and goal. So what do we need to do? We need to look after this planet and we need to care for our country. The Liberal and Nationals' inaction has left Australia exposed to environmental threats and economic risks like international carbon tariffs. The net zero emissions PowerPoint display trotted out yesterday is like a cheap card trick, or a delaying tactic. There was zero new policy. There was zero actual plan in the announcement and no modelling released—just more of the same denial, delay and obfuscation. They are asking the Australian people to trust them because they have technology—and that will save us. They don't explain what the technology is, how it will reduce emissions or who will pay for it—what taxpayer dollars will go into it. They forget that they are responsible for the cuts to the CSIRO budget, of hundreds of millions dollars, and that we've lost almost 40,000 university jobs in the last two years. They are asking us to trust them because they already have policies. Look at their great renewable policies like Snowy 2.0, which isn't even plugged into the grid yet. They are asking us to trust them to reduce emissions, without any new policy at all. It sounds like a line from The Flim-Flam Man to me—somehow emissions will be magically reduced without changing anything, via technology and offshore offsets that they railed against for years and years. Remember that offshore offsets means that somebody else will have to do the work—not unusual territory for this Prime Minister. If we want to achieve net zero by 2050 we can't begin reducing emissions in 2049; we need to get working now. We are in a climate emergency. It will take leadership and vision to turn this ship around. Both of these things are currently lacking in this government. Labour has already engaged in policy development to get the ship right. We've already made announcements like: making electric cars cheaper by slashing inefficient taxes; cutting bills and supporting the grid with community batteries for up to 100,000 solar households; supporting 10,000 apprentices in the new energy trades of the future; our rewiring the nation policy, where Labor will invest $20 billion to upgrade our grid using Australian expertise, steel and workers to provide affordable, reliable and clean electricity to Australian businesses and households; and Labour's $15 billion national reconstruction fund, which will create secure jobs for Australian workers, drive regional economic element, boost our sovereign capability and diversify the nation's economy. It will partner with the private sector on investment that will grow the economy and jobs, including in renewables and low-emissions technologies like wind turbines, batteries and solar panels; modernising steel and aluminium; hydrogen electrolysers; and so much more. And we will continue that process. What is clear is that an Albanese Labor government will create jobs, cut power prices and reduce emissions. I welcome these bills before the House today, because Labor called for these bills. After much delay by the coalition, they have been introduced, but the bills are far from perfect. We have concerns about the work health and safety framework. There was substantial evidence presented to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee that the government has not adopted the harmonised national work health and safety law in the bills. Harmonisation of the laws is important, because, if not harmonised, a worker could be subject to one regulatory regime on shore, a second while in transit on a vessel and a third while working on an offshore renewable project. However, there is some disagreement between the department, the regulator and stakeholders on this. Labour urges the coalition government to undertake further consultation on these provisions. Labor is committed to improving and harmonising the workplace health and safety regulatory framework covering workers in offshore clean energy. It's actually in our national platform. If the government does not fix this, which is most likely, an Albanese Labor government will. Both government and non-government members of the senate committee suggested some amendments to this bill in their report. The member for McMahon has moved an amendment to the bill to incorporate those amendments. I support the amendment moved by the member for McMahon. 18:57 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Finally, after eight years, a piece of legislation that might actually do something good for renewables. Why did it take eight years? Could it be because the energy minister, who's in charge of this legislation—but doesn't have the courage to come and sit here at the dispatch box, so he leaves it up to his junior to come in to fly the flag—earned his political stripes campaigning against wind farms and renewable energy? Could that be the reason it has taken us almost nine years to see a piece of legislation that supports renewables? Could it be because the former Treasurer Joe Hockey said that wind farms were ugly and he couldn't stand them, as he goes around Canberra? Could it be that because the person holding the purse strings in this parliament said, 'I don't want wind farms, and there's no way that I'm going to ever support them?' Could it be because the man who is now the Deputy Prime Minister said he didn't understand, in his words, 'this insane lemming-like desire to have a sea of wind farms everywhere'? Could that be why it has taken almost nine years to see one piece of legislation that might do something good about renewables? Or could it be because our Prime Minister came in here and held up a lump of coal and said, 'This is coal. It's amazing. It won't hurt you,' when the whole world was screaming at him and saying that coal and gas are the major causes of the climate crisis, and we've got to stop burning them? Could that be why it has taken so long to see one piece of legislation from the government that might actually do something good for renewables? Well, increasingly, this government led by climate deniers is getting mugged by reality. Is it the political reality of having seats that they thought were supersafe, like Kooyong, now being Greens-Liberal seats, where a small number of votes could shift and the Treasurer could get the message that it is time to take action on the climate crisis? Or could it be that they're getting mugged by the political reality of seeing a former prime minister lose his seat to an independent who's got an ambitious climate policy? Could it be the fact that the Prime Minister is heading off to one of the most important climate summits in our lifetime, where, if he walked in with his lump of coal, he'd be turned around and kicked out, shown the door? Slowly but surely, the government is getting mugged by reality, including by the business community, who are saying, 'We have had enough.' Mind you, many of them are the same business community that tore down the carbon price when we had it, which was working to cut pollution in this country. They've now had a change of heart. But, increasingly, the government are realising that, although it might play well to their backbench to wave around lumps of coal and pretend climate change doesn't exist, it doesn't wash anymore. It doesn't wash. Of course, they still have climate denialism at their heart. You see that just this week, where the world is pleading with the Prime Minister, who should have done a piece of legislation like this long ago—because the Greens have been calling for it for that long. The reason that— A government member interjecting— Mr M3C We hear the truth being spoken. The Liberal interjection, for the Hansard, was 'We're only one per cent of global emissions; what can we do?' Well, you know what? That shows you everything you need to know. I'm sure that they'll get up and correct that if they think I'm misrepresenting them. But that is what this government believes at heart: we should not be taking action on the climate crisis. That is why. You've heard it in the government's own words. Do you know what? Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal. We're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuel pollution, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. Don't come in here and pretend we're not responsible. We are the third-largest exporter of fossil fuel pollution. And you know who we'll be hanging out with at the climate summit when Scott Morrison goes there? Russia and Saudi Arabia—with these mid-century net zero targets and no plan to get there, and subsidies for coal, gas and oil to put more coal, gas and oil into the system along the way. This is a government of climate deniers, and delay is the new denial. Pushing action out to 2050 and coming up with a plan that involves more coal and gas, terrible 2030 targets and just a hope that someone will ride in on a unicorn in 2049, with technology that hasn't been invented yet, to save us all shows your plan is a fraud. The fact that the government send members in here, during a debate on their own bill about wind farms, to interject that 'we're only one per cent of emissions so why should we do anything' tells you everything you need to know about the denial that beats at the heart of this government. That is why, to get action on the climate crisis, we need to phase out coal and gas. Sadly, we have a situation in this parliament where both the government and the opposition want more coal and gas. In fact, they're prepared to put their hands into the public's pocket to make people pay for it. People may not know this, but, thanks to the government and the opposition voting together, $50 million of public money is now going to help open up a new climate time-bomb in the Northern Territory—the Beetaloo gas basin. You thought Adani was bad? Beetaloo is terrible. Inside those Northern Territory gas basins there's the equivalent of 70 years of all of Australia's pollution. And opening up that project will put an extra six per cent on Australia's emissions. So, at the same time that the Prime Minister parades around, saying he's going to cut emissions to zero at some specified time in the future and, 'I've got no plan to get there; just trust me,' Liberal and Labor are actually making the public give $50 million to big gas corporations to open up the Beetaloo basin, which will be worse than Adani. We have, sadly, a situation here where the country is run by a bunch of climate deniers, but the opposition wants more coal and gas as well. The only way we are going to tackle the climate crisis is by phasing out coal and gas. What is becoming clearer day by day is that the only way we're going to get climate action—and not just have legislation like this brought in after nine years of government—brought in on the first day of the next government is to kick the Liberals out and put the Greens in balance of power, to push the next government to take the action that science requires and phase out coal and gas. The very good news is that this government is hanging on by its fingernails. That's why it's bringing in pieces of legislation like this after nine years—to try and convince people that they care about renewables. They know that the smallest of shifts, only a few hundred votes, is going to see them lose majority government. That's how close this election is. But it's going to be very difficult for the opposition to win in its own right. So at this election, if you want more legislation that's going to fast track renewables and phase out coal and gas, don't waste your vote on a Liberal or Labor Party that won't be able to win majority government in their own right. Vote to put the Greens in the balance of power so that we can kick out the Liberals and push the next government. That is how we're going to see legislation that will unlock this country's potential. This bill is about offshore wind. Did you know that Australia has around 2,000 gigawatts of offshore energy that we can harness? To put that into perspective, Australia's entire grid is around 55 gigawatts. In other words, there's 40 times Australia's current energy use in our offshore waters. That's why the Greens have been saying for so long that we need legislation that will help unlock that potential. There are a couple of key projects that are trying to get underway but that don't have any regulatory environment, and this bill will allow them to proceed. There's the Star of the South project, which is going to help replace Australia's oldest and dirtiest coal plant, Yallourn, in Victoria's Latrobe Valley. And there is Oceanex's 10 gigawatts project currently situated offshore of the New South Wales coal regions of the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra. Just these two projects alone—bearing in mind, as I said, that there's about 40 times Australia's current energy use out there to be tapped—are near the regions where we're going to have to phase out coal. These projects will be the projects that will help workers transition as we phase out coal and gas, which is why they should have been supported a long time ago—so that we could replace those coal-fired power stations and turn them off in a way that allows workers to move directly into secure industries with well-paid jobs. It makes so much sense. What also makes sense is to use the infrastructure that's already there to create hydrogen, to create ammonium and to power heavy industry and manufacturing with clean energy, instead of relying on last century's increasingly unreliable coal and gas technologies. But the good thing about there being 40 times the equivalent of Australia's energy just in wind alone—we haven't even touched solar yet or what we're going to be able to do in backing it all up with hydro—is that we could have a surplus mentality. We could produce so much electricity that it would drive the cost down to near zero because the fuel is free. That's the other great thing about the sun and the wind: they are free. You could drive the cost of electricity down to zero. Not only is that going to revitalise manufacturing in this country when we have cheap, clean electricity; we're also going to be a magnet for all those energy-hungry industries in the world and in our region. The Greens want Australia to be the place where you bring your energy-hungry industry to from around the world and you set up here because you get an advantage in Australia that no-one else can give you. We can give you low-cost electricity that is clean. This is what we could do if we unleash the potential that Australia has. There is a number of practical changes to this bill that would help. We could amend the bill to include a merit criteria for feasibility licences, commercial licences and transmission licences in a way that would include local procurement of labour and goods right through the logistics and supply chains. This could unleash a massive domestic employment potential. We could get people jobs. If we said, 'We are not only going to have these offshore wind farms in our area but we will put in place laws and rules that drive up local employment and local training,' this could be a massive jobs bonanza. We should have Australians crewing the ships that are going out to be part of these projects and build back up a shipping industry that has been decimated over the course of several governments. We should also remove the possibility of financial speculators or scalpers rushing in to buy tenements by removing from the bill that the minister consider and accept financial offers from licences and, instead, manage and distribute them in the public interest to rapidly develop clean energy. A third change to the bill could be the suggestion put forward during the inquiry by Sun Cable that would make it clearer that one of the main objects of the law is to encourage the export of Australia's vast renewable resources to the world. For clarity and purpose to both investors and lawyers, this implicit obligation of the legislation should be made explicit. Finally, as mentioned by previous speakers, the workplace health and safety provisions should be fully harmonised with the national system to ensure that the standards that apply to workplace health and safety are the best that they can be. I support the comments made by one of the members of the opposition on that point. You can't trust this government to go ahead and implement legislation well. We have seen that with JobKeeper. We have to make sure that they don't turn a good piece of legislation into something that is a millstone around the industry's neck. We hope they won't. But above all, we have to get out of coal and gas. We need to stop giving public money to coal and gas because that will slow down the growth of this amazing potential industry in Australia that could set us up, not only as a renewable energy superpower but as the regional hub for clean, cheap energy. 19:12 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam The mega announcements made by the government yesterday amidst much hype were welcome but modest. In effect, what they have done is join Australia with every other state and territory in the country, every significant business, whether they are an industrial, mining or financial services business, with the rest of the world in acknowledging that if we don't hit net zero by 2050, we face a diabolical climate consequence. Australia, as a nation, has the most to lose if we don't work in concert with every other nation around the world. Whether it is the Great Barrier Reef or the sustainability of our agricultural lands, the fact that the majority of the population lives within a few kilometres of the ocean, we have the most to lose and, indeed, the most to gain through the transition to a clean energy future and the reduction of our carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. Of course, focusing on 2050 is a bit of a sleight of hand because, in essence, if we are not looking at what needs to be done over the next decade, we are essentially setting a target for our grandkids to achieve, instead of us focusing on the job that is our responsibility as elected men and women of this parliament. So more focus needs to be put on what we will do over the next decade so that our grandchildren need to do less over the next three decades to rectify the problems we have left stand still. I support the bills and I support the amendment that has been moved by the member for McMahon. The bills are sensible if late, as others have noted, because offshore wind is a proven technology that does have the potential to turn Australia into a renewable energy powerhouse. The only thing stopping it, frankly, has been the inaction of this government. So it's a good thing that, at last, these bills have come before the House after years of needless delay. Delay in this place has meant that offshore wind projects have been delayed as well, including offshore wind projects adjacent to my electorate and the electorate of the member for Cunningham, who has joined us in the chamber. I'll have more to say about that shortly. Two offshore projects are ready to go. They're waiting to go off the coast of the Illawarra, and I'm keen to speak a little bit about them. The bill will establish the necessary regulatory framework to allow them to go ahead, including the rules around the construction, installation, commissioning, maintenance and, eventually, decommissioning of such projects. As the member for Cunningham will know, we are very familiar with the consequences of the failure of governments to put in place mechanisms, including financial security mechanisms, that require businesses and proponents who put forward these renewable energy projects offshore to rectify and decommission at the end of the project. We have experienced off Port Kembla over the last decade what became both a hazard and an eyesore when a failed offshore wave project was not properly decommissioned, and the taxpayer had to pick up the bill for that. These sorts of mechanisms are absolutely necessary. We are behind the eight ball, a long way behind the eight ball. Denmark and Germany, alongside many other European countries, already have a well-established offshore wind-farm industry producing many gigawatts of renewable energy for their economies. They must be looking at Australia, with its vastly more expansive coastlines, and wondering to themselves why we are so late to the game. Recent research by Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre estimates that the feasible potential for wind farm energy production in Australia is in excess of 2,300 gigawatts. Members of this place may or may not be aware that the entire annual production of Australia's energy grid is 55 gigawatts. So it's many multiples—as many as five times—of the annual production of our current grid that is available to us through offshore wind farm facilities. It is a veritable goldmine waiting to be tapped. The only thing missing is sufficient regulatory guidelines. Investors want in. Institutional investors—I speak to them regularly—want in. They want regulatory certainty. They can see a long-term income stream available to them from an energy-hungry nation which wants to attract more, not less industry to this country on the basis of cheap and sustainable energy from renewable sources. As welcome as these bills are, simply getting some regulations in place is not going to be enough. What investors are really after is a plan—not talk of a plan, not a PowerPoint presentation masquerading as a plan, not the repetition of the word plan over 100 times in 30 minute press conference, but an actual plan which will deliver the certainty backed by legislation and guidance for industry. Yesterday, the Prime Minister had an opportunity to do just that, but he failed. He said the word plan over 100 times during his press conference, but just saying 'plan' does not make it real. The fact is that what we saw yesterday was not a plan but a scam. There was no target, no modelling, and no legislation, just a glossy pamphlet and a three-word slogan. After a decade to think about it and 20 previous plans, all he could offer was something which resembled a Seinfeld episode—a show about nothing. That's not leadership. If you want to be a leader you actually need to do the substantial stuff of putting in place the plans and showing people the way to a sustainable economic future. You need to spell the things out and not run and hide because you're terrified that the people who sit behind you may not like what you're proposing. More than two years ago my council, and the member for Cunningham's council—Wollongong City Council—adopted a net zero target by 2050. That was like many other councils around the country and just about every state and territory. They did more than that; they put in place an actual plan with real numbers and real targets in it, including a development strategy which saw the possibility to create over 10½ thousand jobs in our region over the decade through renewables. It identified clean energy as a major source of those jobs and is working through its Invest Wollongong partnerships to bring forward specific projects to deliver those jobs. The New South Wales government, a coalition government, is not my stripe and not my team. But I actually have to admire, in some respects, some of the things that they're doing. They have developed a detailed hydrogen strategy. It was released earlier this month, with detailed targets: 110,000 tons of green hydrogen production by 2030; 10,000 hydrogen powered vehicles on the road in the New South Wales fleet in the same period; and a price on green hydrogen of under $2.80 a kilogram, which makes it not only competitive but more competitive than alternative fossil fuels. It has detailed modelling, including the relative decline in capital costs and energy prices over time as a result of achieving those targets. There's a survey of comparable world economy positions on the hydrogen economy pathway as compared with New South Wales, and there's a thorough examination of the impact on emissions reductions, jobs growth, the growth in export potential and the overall economic benefits. And, finally, the plan has a three-pillar policy which will enable it to achieve its targets. This is what a plan looks like in one sector. It's what a plan looks like! Not a flimsy PowerPoint presentation scattered with three-word slogans repeated time after time after time which doesn't deliver any clarity for investors but which hopefully gets the Prime Minister through the next question time. Australian needs better than that. Through the process that the New South Wales government has identified, Port Kembla is one of two sites identified as a superior location for a large-scale hydrogen production facility, with a planned production start date of 2030. The hub will leverage off Port Kembla's existing high-quality industrial infrastructure and skills base as a springboard into the future. The core gas facility has already been producing hydrogen using existing technology for over 30 years, and the port's facilities and expertise in export orientation, its fast-growing local population and its close access to Sydney also give it natural advantages. That's what a plan looks like! And, in this instance, that plan was crucial in attracting the two offshore windfarm proposals to our region which I spoke of at the top of my contribution. Green Energy Partners is looking at building a $15 billion project with an initial capacity of three gigawatts. I'll just say that number again: a $15 billion project off the coast of Wollongong. They plan to use Port Kembla as a construction hub for the build phase, providing jobs and using local skills and expertise, and building on the port's proud industrial history—a $15 billion project that, for the want of regulation, could have gone ahead a lot earlier. And Ocean EDGE is building a $10 billion floating windfarm with the initial capacity of two gigawatts. So there are two projects and $25 billion worth of work in an economy that's crying out for development and crying out for jobs and potential. It has joined the Illawarra Innovative Industry Network that is collaborating on ways to bring new jobs and opportunities to the local economy across the board. Both projects were attracted to the Illawarra by the clear coordinated plan for the Hydrogen Hub and by the local political commitment, including the commitment of the member for Cunningham and myself, the local councils and state members of parliament of all political stripes. This is how you get action. The bills we are debating today represent a step forward in taking the plan forward into the construction phase. Providing a bit of much-needed regulatory certainty is literally the absolute minimum this government can do. It's the story of the Prime Minister; he always does the bare minimum after exploring every other alternative and every other excuse not to act. The people of the Illawarra and the investors backing their future need much, much more. They're doing their bit to seize the jobs and the opportunities of the future while looking after the workers in traditional industries today. This does not have to be a zero-sum game. I reject the proposition put by the member for Melbourne, in some Disney World fantasy about how this is all going to play out. We've got to bring the people of the Illawarra, the people of the Hunter, along with us. We have got to give them certainty that we've got their backs. They know their grandkids aren't going to go down a coalmine; they know that. They want to ensure that they will continue to have a good paying job, secure employment, an employer that looks after their interests and a government that has got their backs. They want to plan for the future and they want security for their jobs today. That's why an Albanese Labor government will deliver a Made in Australia manufacturing plan, which harnesses the capacity of renewable energy projects with those energy hungry industries and the infrastructure necessary to deliver them, to ensure that we as a nation are no longer just a quarry which digs dirt up, sticks it on a boat and sends it overseas but a nation that value-adds. We can ensure we can harness our endless supply of renewable energy, couple that with our bountiful supply of resources and ensure that we can once again be a manufacturing, a resource and a renewable energy powerhouse. I commend the bills, and the second reading amendment moved by the member for McMahon, to the House. 19:27 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I rise to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the associated bills. We support these bills. We commend the bills, as the previous speaker said. Why is that? Because we have called for this time and time again. As is often the case under this government, they are very late to the party. But we welcome them; finally, they've seen the light! They've heard the wind, as it is. It's great that in recent weeks the Morrison government has suddenly discovered that climate change is an issue, and the need for renewable energy. There must be a 'remind me tomorrow' button installed on the coalition's computers, for dealing with climate change. Or maybe the Morrison government is simply out of scare lines and scare tactics. Either/or, the fact remains that offshore wind has huge potential for Australia. We are girt by sea, as we know, with endless coastlines. We are an island nation. We have some of the best wind resources in the world—and I'm not talking about some of the hot air that has emanated from the Nationals' party room or all the infighting, bluster and huffing and puffing that's gone on as they try and get to the no-brainer position of net zero emissions by 2050. Seriously, we are comparable to places like the North Sea, between Britain and Europe, where offshore energy is already an established industry. It is beyond ridiculous now—it's ludicrous—how long it has taken us to catch up to the rest of the world. In fact, research from earlier this year found that if all the proposed offshore wind farms were built their combined energy capacity would be greater than that of all of Australia's coal-fired power plants. But, despite all this, Australia's lack of a legal framework has meant we're yet to commission our first offshore wind farm. This legislation will finally allow offshore wind to begin in earnest in Australia by setting up the regulatory frameworks necessary for offshore wind farms. It's great to see the government finally getting around to it. There are a lot of reasons— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 100 ADJOURNMENT Ballarat Electorate: COVID-19 101 19:30 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat With Victoria opening up and life beginning to return to our streets and neighbourhoods, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tireless work and dedication of our frontline workers across my community. For two years now, our healthcare workers have continued to put the needs of our community first. They've done so, often covered head to toe in uncomfortable PPE. They've done so through multiple waves of outbreaks. They've done so while dealing with families distressed at not being able to visit loved ones in hospital and aged care. They've done so even during times when they've had to isolate from their own families. They did so even before vaccines were available, and they've done so when, like all of us, they've been personally struggling with lockdowns, home schooling and the uncertainty of this global pandemic. We owe them a debt of gratitude that we cannot repay. To the doctors, nurses and other workers across my community, we say thank you. To the GPs, pharmacists, allied healthcare workers, admin staff and hospital cleaners, we say thank you. To the paramedics, vaccination centre staff and healthcare students who took on new responsibilities, I say thank you. I know that, as we open and we experience what living with COVID means, many of you are anxious about what is to come, but I also know that you are ready and that our community is in safe hands. I want to particularly acknowledge the work of the Grampians Public Health Unit. If the pandemic is to leave us with anything, the fact that we now have a highly experienced and dedicated public health unit protecting and improving the health of our population is cause for thanks. We are incredibly fortunate that Associate Professor Rosemary Aldrich took the decision several years ago to move to Ballarat. She has spent her life working in public health. She's been assisted by an incredible team, including people like Dr Rob Grenfell, also a public health specialist. It is this team that's been on the front line of dealing with local outbreaks in our community and keeping us prepared. In the collaboration between the Grampians Public Health Unit and the already well-established emergency management responses of the councils of the City of Ballarat and of Hepburn, Moorabool and Golden Plains shires and all of the partners from VicPol and the Primary Health Network, along with our individual GPs and our network of pharmacies, they have shown terrific leadership. Across our community, people like our supermarket and delivery workers have also kept our cupboards and fridges full. They've continued to go to work, and they did so even before the protection of vaccination. They've been dealing with stressed and frustrated customers. To the cleaners who've attended to exposure sides at the risk of themselves and their families, and to the teachers and childcare workers who continue to support and encourage our children, including my own, I say: we cannot thank you enough. To all of the essential workers in my electorate who've had to continue to attend their workplaces at their own risk to support the community, we say thank you. I could not have been prouder of our community and the way in which they've banded together over the past two years. It's been an extraordinary two years. We've shown kindness and support to one another. We've been shopping more locally than ever before. We've been supporting our local restaurants, with their innovations in keeping us fed. And, of course, the vaccination rate in our community is fantastic. Despite the early lack of doses, over 95 per cent of the eligible population have now had a first dose, and around 79 per cent of those over the age of 15 are now double dosed in our community. The uptake by the 12- to 16-year-old age groups in a matter of weeks has been terrific. The people of Ballarat are prepared, and we are ready to live with COVID-19 in the community, to enjoy an economic recovery in the region and to be reunited with family and friends from metro Melbourne. We know that there is a road ahead still to travel. We will need to continue to support our frontline workers as they deal with an increase in COVID cases, but I am optimistic that, with the uptake of the vaccines, the workers have already been supported by the community to make their work and lives much easier. I would also like to acknowledge all of the hospitality, events, live performance, travel and tourism providers and any other businesses that found overnight that they could not continue operating in the fashion that they had been doing for years. Many of you had to pivot and learn new ways of doing things. While we're not out yet and there will be more challenges, I'm optimistic that the lessons of the pandemic will last. The strength we've demonstrated in our community, the resilience of our kids, the leadership of and the collaboration between our institutions and the compassion we've shown for those who the pandemic has left so vulnerable—all will hold us in good stead in the days and months ahead. We say: thank you, Ballarat. Gambling 101 19:35 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I've long been a passionate advocate for thoroughbred racing. Racing Australia estimates that the industry makes an economic contribution of $9.5 billion every year, with half of that going to regional areas. In fact, there are 376 race clubs across Australia, and 95 per cent of these are in regional areas. The industry employs around 75,000 full-time employees in regional areas. There are an additional 156,000 breeders, trainers and owners involved nationally. I'll also put on record that I don't mind a punt myself—responsibly, of course—but, with the Melbourne Cup approaching, I say: only bet with what you can afford to lose. However, I'm concerned about the rise of online gambling at the expense of punters at clubs, pubs and racetracks. I'm concerned that online gambling has accelerated during COVID. I'm concerned that the companies benefiting most are foreign-owned gambling giants, who are licensed in the Northern Territory and sending their megaprofits offshore—companies such as Sportsbet, Ladbrokes, Bet365 and many more. Some of the megaprofits end up in Gibraltar, where they have some gambling licenses. I'm also concerned that these operators are represented in Canberra by Australian lobbyists. The Australian lobby group known as Responsible Wagering Australia exclusively lobbies for the interests of foreign-owned online gambling bookmakers. They are currently not on the foreign influence transparency register, and I think they should be. Parliamentarians should know who is ultimately pulling the strings when lobbyists knock on their doors. If it's good enough for Alexander Downer to be on the foreign influence register for assisting the government of Gibraltar when its in trade negotiations, I think it's good enough for Responsible Wagering Australia to be on the register for assisting the economy of Gibraltar too. What I can assure the Australian public is that, when you place a bet with the TAB, that money stays in Australia. The money earned from TAB outlets in Australia is passed back to fund Australian racing. It goes towards prize money et cetera. In Flynn, there are over a dozen racecourses in my electorate—Gladstone, Emerald, Springsure, Bluff-Blackwater, Dingo, Thangool, Monto, Taroom, Eidsvold, Wondai, Gayndah and Mount Perry. They do not race every Saturday, of course, but they have seasons when they do race, some only twice a year. Of course, there are numerous TAB outlets. I look forward to supporting racing in Queensland and racing in Australia in the future, and I want to see racing remain strong and the regions remain vibrant. This will be the case if the money stays in Australia and it doesn't go overseas. Remember: if you have a losing bet on the TAB, all is not lost, as it's supporting Australian race clubs and the industry itself. When you bet online with overseas bookmakers, all of the money goes offshore. Better still, back winners, not losers, and put the money in your own pocket. Housing Affordability 102 19:39 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to tonight to speak about the major housing crisis on the New South Wales North Coast. This includes a housing affordability crisis, a rental crisis and a homelessness crisis, and it's getting worse day by day. It requires urgent action from all levels of government, yet this issue has been fundamentally ignored by the Prime Minister and by the Liberals and Nationals. Our region has seen the largest increase in house prices across the entire nation. House values in the Richmond-Tweed area climbed more than 36 per cent in the 12 months to June, and in Byron they climbed more than 50 per cent. In fact, it costs more to buy a house in Byron than it does to buy one in Sydney. The median house price in Byron is now more than $1.5 million. We've seen massive increases right across the region. For so many locals it means they're getting priced out of the market, and for first home buyers it means that first home is completely unattainable. It's practically impossible for them to get into the market. The rental crisis is also incredibly desperate, and affordable rentals are almost non-existent. Every day, locals are contacting me, telling me how difficult it is to pay their rent. Often the prices are skyrocketing overnight, and often they're forced to move out because they just cannot afford them. When you look at all the community pages and social media you see story after story of desperate situations of people in crisis calling out for somewhere to live. So many long-term locals have been forced out because they just cannot afford a place to live. They are often living in their cars. It's that desperate. The recent Domain September 2021 Rental Report shows that it is now more expensive to rent on the New South Wales North Coast than anywhere else in the entire country. It is more expensive there than in Sydney or Melbourne or Canberra. It is more expensive than any capital city or anywhere in the nation. This is how desperate the situation is. The average price in the Ballina shire is $650 per week, a 25 per cent increase in just a year. The average rental price in the Tweed shire is $678 per week, a 23.2 per cent increase in just a year. In the Byron shire the average rental price is $850 per week. That's an increase of more than 22.3 per cent in the past year. That means of course that the average rental cost on the North Coast is $726 per week. Compared to Sydney, at $585 a week, those figures are appalling. Many essential workers are unable to find rentals. Everybody's Home, the national campaign against homelessness, cross-referenced rental data with the basic hourly wage of workers in disability support, aged care, child care, hospitality and supermarkets. Their calculation shows that an essential care or service worker would need to spend up to two-thirds of a normal working week's wages to rent an apartment on North Coast. So hardworking Australians who are there and who are essential to providing the services that our community needs simply cannot afford to rent a place. As a result of the housing and the rental crisis, we are seeing so many people forced into homelessness. Our local community organisations do a remarkable job, but the demand on the services they have is just not sustainable. Many are saying that they're seeing people they've never seen before: working families who just cannot afford to buy groceries and cannot pay their rent. We're seeing so much pressure on those community organisations. The Liberals and Nationals have been in power now for eight long years, and in that time housing, rental affordability and homelessness have gotten so much worse. We on this side have continually called for a national housing affordability plan, but shamefully, that has not happened, even as this crisis has got worse day by day, month by month. In contrast, we in Labor have been listening and constantly talking to people about the situation. We have listened. That is why we've announced our housing affordability plan. An Albanese Labor government will create a $10 billion housing future fund to build social and affordable housing, and the fund will create jobs, build homes and change lives. It's not just good social policy; it's also very good economic policy. Our plan will give more Australians a future. The fund will also provide affordable homes for those heroes of the pandemic who kept us safe, those frontline workers like police, nurses and cleaners, and it will provide housing for veterans and crisis accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. These are such important issues for my community. Labor has listened and responded with our strong housing affordability plan Only Labor will act to fix this. I say to the people of the North Coast: if you are serious about fixing the housing crisis, Labor is on your side and we will act. COVID-19: Vaccination 103 19:44 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The vaccine rollout has gathered pace, and as a nation we are now vaccinating a million people every three days. More than 70 per cent of the eligible population aged over 16 are fully vaccinated, and today South Australia achieved 80 per cent first dose vaccinations. This is a fantastic achievement, and I thank Australians for rolling up their sleeves to help reach these targets, which will see borders open and restrictions ease. The government has made vaccination freely available, and I myself have received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. We have embarked on advertising campaigns to encourage vaccinations because we know a high vaccination rate is our ticket to freedom, and it's clear that as a nation we will achieve vaccination rates above 90 per cent—truly remarkable. But I am becoming increasingly concerned about the emergence of a two-tiered society. Forty-six companies confirmed to the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald this week that a double vaccination would be a requirement for at least part of their workforce, while unvaccinated adults and older children will be barred from accessing all but basic services until 2023 under the Victorian government's path back to freedom announced by the Premier on Sunday. From a federal government perspective, we are following at the AHPPC advice on vaccine mandates. They have recommended mandatory vaccinations in two areas only: aged-care workers and those working in quarantine facilities. The medical advice has not been to recommend or mandate vaccinations in other sectors on public health grounds. The Western Australian government plans to roll out the toughest vaccination mandate in the country: 75 per cent of the Western Australian workers will be forced to get a vaccination or risk losing their jobs, and employers will face fines of up to $100,000 if they have unvaccinated staff working past the deadline. We all want to be safe. We all want to return to a more normal life, one without threat of serious illness or death, but we should stop for a moment and balance the public health need with the individual's right to choose. Let me be clear: I do not endorse mandatory vaccination, and I do not support mandating vaccines by stealth. Individuals should be free to choose. As individuals, they are responsible for the consequences of that choice. I agree with compulsory vaccinations for those working with our most vulnerable, such as aged-care workers and those working in quarantine facilities, but extending this principle to other fields of work and ordinary daily activities is a step too far. I ask that as a society we stop and think about the consequences of, effectively, forcing vaccinations on the unwilling. Rightly, we have never mandated medical procedures in this country, and we have never mandated vaccines. The federal government invests considerable resources in approval processes through the TGA to ensure vaccines are safe and effective, and the government subsidises their provision via the national immunisation program. But, as I have said, they have never been mandated. I understand how much work goes into making vaccines available to Australians, because I have been a strong and vocal advocate for seeing the meningococcal B vaccine made available and free to all Australian children. But I would never support making the meningococcal vaccine mandatory for Australian children. I would never want to see the choice taken from a parent and a medical procedure mandated by a government. Vaccinations should remain an individual's choice, and those who choose not to be vaccinated should not be ostracised. Outside of the aged-care setting, we don't exclude those who haven't taken the flu vaccine from work or from other aspects of life. A society that shuns the unvaccinated is not what I want a post-COVID Australia to look like. My family came to Australia seeking opportunity—opportunity made possible by the freedoms Australians enjoy. I want us to return to a post-COVID society that does not impinge on those freedoms and that remains inclusive, regardless of an individual's and vaccination status. I do not want COVID normal to involve the need to flash our vaccination status around to participate in ordinary daily activities. Steel Industry 104 19:49 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Australia's the largest exporter of iron ore in the world. It's an essential component in steelmaking. As a result, we have benefited from the fact that the modern world is built on steel. It's the second-most abundant man-made substance on earth, after concrete. Around 1.8 gigatons were produced last year alone. It's importance to the Australian economy can't be underestimated. It's worth about $29 billion and employs literally tens of thousands of Australians. Australia has five steel mills, and they make about 5.5 million tonnes of steel a year. The largest, in my hometown of the Illawarra, produces roughly half of that—big by national but not by international scale. We produce less than two per cent of the steel that is produced globally. China produces about half of the steel in the world. Nonetheless, our domestic steel industry is a vital part of the supply chain for so many local industries. It's a key supplier to residential and commercial construction industries. The local saying goes: where goes a building boom goes a steel boom. There's a lot of steel in a modern residential development. It's used to make grain silos on farms, electrical transformers for our rail network, girders and pipes for major civil projects, and bearings and brake components for the vehicle component industry. It's a major supplier to the Australian naval defence industry. The value of having a domestic steelmaking capacity onshore here in Australia cannot be overstated. We saw during the pandemic how disruptive supply chains can be to the entire economy. That's why Labor's future Made in Australia policy and our government procurement policy are so crucial in giving the steel industry a chance to compete for even more work. But that's just the start: the steel industry needs to deal with the climate change and energy challenge, as every other business in the economy does. The steel industry is well versed in dealing with these challenges. In my lifetime there have been three challenges and significant shocks in the steel industry alone. It knows it has a central role in decarbonising its industry—and, as a result of that, the economy—and in driving the process and technologies that will lead to cleaner production. From wind turbines to electric vehicles, steel will be a critical and integral part of the energy transition. It also has a role to play in bringing down its own emissions. This is because steel is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. The industry accounts for seven per cent of all global greenhouse gas emissions from the energy system—equal to global aviation, shipping and chemical emissions combined. BlueScope—the biggest employer in the steel industry in my electorate in the Illawarra—is aware of the challenge. It has committed to net zero emissions by 2050. So has its predecessor, BHP. The steel industry has started down the path to decarbonise its business, but it cannot do it alone. It needs a reliable source of large quantities of renewable energy; it needs a power grid which is capable of hooking that energy source up to the emerging steelmaking technologies; and it needs a government which is committed to action, not just a slideshow. It needs a national climate change policy that encourages investment and maintains competitiveness and ensures a viable industry for decades to come. Let me explain why. There's been a lot of talk in this place about the capacity for green steel. It's not a term used by the people who make steel, by the way. They know that it's red, brown or grey—but never green. But we know what proponents of green steel mean. They mean decarbonising the steelmaking process. There are exciting developments going on overseas, but the glide path to decarbonise steel is probably about 15 years away. In the meantime, we need to ensure that we have a viable steel industry in Australia. The steps towards decarbonised steel are not going to be one big step but lots of little ones, and to achieve that we need certainty in government policy and ongoing support and this parliament, the state parliaments and the local councils around the country to say: Australia doesn't want to just be the people who dig dirt up and send it overseas; we want to continue to make steel here. Tasmania 105 19:54 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon [by video link] Tasmania is world renowned for its natural environment. As a climate leader we stand on our own in Tasmania; we produced net zero emissions in six of the last seven years. The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area covers around a fifth of our state. It protects vast tracts of pristine wilderness which harbours a wealth of outstanding natural and cultural heritage. Our clean, green and 100 per cent renewable status is a source of great pride for Tasmanians. We know that it affords us the lifestyle that is the envy of Australia and the rest of the world. Living in an isolated state, Tasmanians have a deep multigenerational connection to the regions that they live in. In many instances, this connection involves immersing themselves in the natural environment that's on their doorstep. I've always been a fierce advocate for allowing wide-ranging access to our wonderful natural resources. As long as those activities are undertaken in a safe, respectful, sustainable and culturally sensitive manner, all Tasmanians should be able to avail themselves of the island's natural environment. And everyone connects differently with nature. Personally, I have a shack down on the west coast of Tasmania and I like to escape in the four-wheel-drive or the UTV. Whether it's walking, riding a mountain bike or a horse, or driving in a four-wheel-drive or on a motorbike; whether it's fishing, camping, diving or surfing, we all interact in ways that are almost as diverse as the people who live here. No interaction is more noble than the next. From our rugged coastlines and our sandy beaches to our lakes, mountain ranges, farmland and forestry regions, the broad range of activities that have taken place historically in these areas are all important. An understanding of the environment has forged long-lasting social connections and mental health comes are improved. This has been particularly important during the last couple of years as COVID has shone a light on ways to reduce stress, including getting back to nature. I believe that we're at a crucial point when it comes to accessing our natural environment. We have seen in our state over recent years an ever-increasing move to lock up large areas and tracts of Tasmania. The consequence of this has been to limit or to deny access to those who have used certain areas historically. Alarmingly, this movement is resulting in a move towards exclusion rather than inclusion. This leads me to ask the question: is this the right path? I recognise that I am in a position of privilege as the federal representative for this region in the Parliament of Australia. It's a key responsibility of my role to represent the views of my constituents vigorously in this place. What I'm being told on the ground is that our communities are tired of these divisive agendas which do not represent the majority view of the position of key stakeholders—that is, the locals. Central to their concerns is being excluded from the decision-making process. I believe that government and bureaucrats continue to underestimate what can be achieved through public and stakeholder consultation and inclusion. By bringing a community together along with you, socially acceptable outcomes are achieved and compliance is all but guaranteed. I have committed to continue to be a loud voice for those who wish to get off the beaten track, to get out into our beautiful wilderness regions and just have some time out. It's important to note that no-one is advocating a free-for-all approach. There needs to be a strong framework. However, the foundation of that framework needs to be environmental protection and access, not just one or the other. We must focus on how we can make this happen, rather than why we can't. Like most things in life, balance is the key. But most important is that we move together as a community in the spirit of cooperation, good faith and understanding. The protection of our regions' Aboriginal Indigenous cultural areas and our unique flora and fauna is vital—we all agree on this. The discussion that we must have next is to ask how responsible recreation use coexists with that framework. Thank you. House adjourned at 19 : 59 NOTICES 105 NOTICES

Wednesday, 27 October 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) took the chair at 10:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 107 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Newcastle Electorate: Funding 107 10:00 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle This government likes to talk a big game about supporting the regions, but deep down they're only in it for themselves. Mr Morrison and his mates spend taxpayers' money like it's Liberal Party money, while regional communities like Newcastle get left behind. On Monday in the Newcastle Herald the Nationals candidate for the Hunter called for funding to support the expansion of the Newcastle Art Gallery. According to the article, the Nationals candidate 'spoke with the Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce about securing funds for the project after its $10 million Building Better Regions application was unsuccessful'. Honestly, you could not make this stuff up: it was of course his own beloved National Party that had just awarded $300 million of taxpayers' money to coalition targeted seats. I have long advocated for the expansion of the Newcastle Art Gallery. It's a compelling project. I have often brought it to the attention of this parliament, and the minister directly, in an attempt to secure funds, including in the most recent round of the Building Better Regions Fund. But who knows: perhaps the Nationals candidate has secured himself a sneak peek at the next edition of the pink and green colour-coded spreadsheet? Or he might have time booked in the minister's diary for a sneaky meeting to go and lobby behind closed doors. Let's not forget, the government has still refused to tell us which projects were cut and denied funding because they clearly did not match up with the Morrison government's agenda. How many more projects in my community—like the Newcastle Art Gallery, the Victoria Theatre, the Newcastle Business Club and The Business Centre—have been passed over for projects in coalition seats, despite their being tainted pink? Coming off the back of the sports rorts, which saw Newcastle Olympic Football Club dudded of their funding, even though the department found their excellent project to be completely worthy, Newcastle has fallen victim to another round of regional rorts. This is why the Morrison-Joyce government won't introduce an independent national integrity commission with teeth—because it would get in the way of all of this rorting business. Even before these latest revelations, the Australian National Audit Office had already announced that they were auditing this billion-dollar program. Since the creation of the Building Better Regions Fund in 2018, a total of 90 per cent—that's right: 90 per cent—of all funding has gone to coalition held and targeted seats. Seriously, how is this justifiable as a regional development policy? Well, it's not. It is not a fair policy. It is not a transparent policy. It is a rort, through and through. This is not about doing what is right for the regions; it's all about keeping the government in power, with Australian taxpayers footing the bill. (Time expired) Stirling Electorate: Community Organisations 107 10:03 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling This month marks a significant milestone for many of the community organisations in my electorate of Stirling, many of whom are doing incredible work and have been active within our community for decades. To have withstood the test of time and multiple challenges that come with it—in particular, COVID-19—is a significant achievement in itself. But to serve the community and deliver positive outcomes to local communities and families is absolutely admirable. A few weeks ago I attended Majella Catholic Primary School to join them in their 50th-year celebratory mass. It was really heartening to speak with the students, as well as the teachers past and present, at this momentous milestone and to see just how passionate and dedicated the staff, the priests and other assistants throughout the school are to their community. On a tour of the school later that day with Principal David Barns I had the opportunity to see some of the infrastructure and facilities that the Morrison government has supported the construction of and to hear about the school's vision for the future. Well done to David and the Majella team for the hard work and dedication that you put in to make the community a real hub, particularly for the multicultural students and families. Later that same day I was just down the road at Nollamara, where I joined Uniting Aid who were celebrating their 40th anniversary—not quite at the 50 years of Majella, but they're catching up. I would like to acknowledge Uniting Aid and their team of dedicated individuals for their continued service to the disadvantaged people living in my electorate of Stirling. This amazing organisation has provided support and emergency relief to those in need, including food, clothing, household goods and financial assistance with utility bills. In particular, in recognising the volunteers, I recognise a couple of the very special volunteers, Charis Page and Wendy Gardner. At the 40th anniversary celebrations it really was an honour to recognise Wendy and Charis and pay tribute to their hard work over many, many years. This weekend, Hamersley Scout group will celebrate their 50th anniversary with a community open day. I'd like to commend this organisation for their fantastic work in providing young boys and girls with the skills that they need as they emerge as our future leaders. It's local groups, organisations and schools like these in Stirling that are the lifeblood of our communities, providing wonderful opportunities and support to their neighbours, to those in need and to the next generation of young Australians. Manufacturing 108 10:06 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo This pandemic crisis has really shone a light on how important local manufacturing is and how important sovereign capability is. I do acknowledge that, when the pandemic first hit and the whole world scrambled to secure their medical supplies predominantly—everything from nasal swabs to hand sanitiser to face masks—there was an urgent push to develop our PPE manufacturing capability in this country. It was a warning shot to Australians, the Australian government and Australian industry that we've lost our sovereign capability, we've lost our supply chains and we've lost the ability to properly prepare. That has come at a huge cost to Australians, to Australian taxpayers and to this government. But, rather than seeing the need for ongoing investment to ensure that we secure our supply chains now and into the future, we've seen those supply chains already starting to drop off. What I'm hearing from manufacturers across the country is that the contracts that they secured at the beginning of the pandemic have not been renewed. As the supply chains in China come on, people have gone back to their old suppliers or found new suppliers. But many overseas suppliers are unreliable, as we know. This government has left our manufacturers high and dry. They invested in new equipment and they pivoted from what they were manufacturing to new manufacturing, but, when the first critical contract ended, there was no second contract or third contract. It's disappointing that we've had a real lack of national leadership to secure our supply chains. It's not just about supply chains for PPE. We have massive issues throughout our economy, and they're going to result in a hit to productivity and a hit to the hip pocket by inflating the costs of many things—for example, construction. We debated this week in this chamber the timber supply issues that we're having across Australia, which are impacting my electorate as well. One of the main issues that manufacturers in my part of the world raise with me is the cost of freight. It has gone through the roof. As one manufacturer said to me, there's been a complete lack of national leadership when it comes to freight, from our truck drivers who are getting COVID and taking it interstate—they were not on the priority list for immunisation; they've never been in categories 1a or 1b, yet they are responsible for getting product around this country—to the materials coming in from overseas. On this government's watch we've lost out sovereign shipping capability. Where's the leadership on that issue? We need to do a lot now to secure our supply chains so that we have a safer future, yet all we've seen from this government is spin and destruction, but no real commitment to securing manufacturing and securing our supply chains, from freight to the front door. Groom Electorate: Building Better Regions Fund 108 10:39 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Successful projects under round 5 of the Building Better Regions Fund have been announced, and I'm very excited to share that my region will benefit from more than $5 million in funding. An opposition member: Another rort. Mr HAMILTON 291387 It's wonderful to hear Labor put down, as they always do, the efforts of the hardworking people who fought to get this funding, the community members who did the hard work to get this funding! I want them to hear that because that's what Labor thinks of them. It thinks everything should be controlled in some other way. These are people who have reached out and done the hard work for it, and I'm going to recount some of them. It's absolutely shameful that the work of these people is being spoken down by Labor like that. We've got the Great Divide Mountain Bike Destination. This is a project that has come from the community. The Toowoomba mountain bike community slowly built up the case for this project, bit by bit, over 20 years. They made these paths themselves, working very closely with the council and with the local environmental groups to get the paths agreed to and to get them in place. They built up a community that supports them, and I'm very happy to have stood beside them on the day the announcement for the funding came through for them. This is a community-led project. These are community members who have fought to get this funding for their project, and they absolutely deserve it. It's fantastic to see. And it's mountain biking, not motorbiking, Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien! It's very safe. Another great project that we have is the Darling Downs Health Museum. This was fought for by the Toowoomba Hospital Foundation to have on the Baillie Henderson Hospital site. Toowoomba has a fantastic reputation for its long history of providing great health care throughout a huge part of Western Queensland and right down into northern New South Wales. In fact, people from Delungra and Moree, where my family came from, who needed big operations were sent to Toowoomba first. Toowoomba has a great history, and it's wonderful for this museum to get a place to bring together those memories on the site of Bailey Henderson. We're now looking forward to the Premier of Queensland coming on board and funding the new hospital that Toowoomba needs—$1.2 billion. I'm sure that will happen any day now. It's also great to see $1 million going towards the construction of an indoor bowls at Club Toowoomba. This is a great project that has brought together small clubs that were struggling across the region with the debts required to keep these assets alive and keep them open. Club Toowoomba brought them together in one place. They fought for, and I'm very happy they got, this funding for an indoor bowls arena. These bowls clubs have huge histories in Toowoomba. It's an incredibly popular pastime in our region. It's wonderful that the future of these clubs has been secured with his great piece of infrastructure, with $1 million going to Club Toowoomba. It was a great job from everybody there. The last one is quite exciting—Meatstock 2022. This is a Toowoomba Regional Council project, which will receive $25,000 to keep them on track. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 I thank the member for Groom. I'd just advise him that I'm good at crashing mountain bikes as well as motorbikes! Brisbane Airport, Asylum Seekers 109 10:12 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise today to express my and the Greens's strong support for the two requests in the 'Noise pollution from Brisbane Airport's flight path' petition that tabled in this place in October. The 2,455 signatories had two reasonable requests: 1. Amend the Air Services Act 1995 to free Airservices Australia from its regulatory capture by the aviation industry and ensure it protects the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas from the effects of the operation and use of aircraft. 2. Review to what extent the ministerial approval granted in 2007 relied on flawed and misleading data, with a view to revoke the approval of the current aviation airspace management plan for Brisbane Airport. Local communities in Brisbane are dealing with significant noise pollution due to the second runway and subsequent changes to flight paths approved by this federal government. Earlier this week hundreds of Brisbane residents joined the Greens candidate for the seat of Griffith, Max Chandler-Mather, in a large rally against unsustainable aircraft noise. As Max Chandler-Mather pointed out, it's important to emphasise that this fight isn't just about the tens of thousands of residents directly affected right now; it's about the very future of Brisbane. As a member of parliament who supported the battles of Melbourne residents against aircraft noise, I understand the community's concern and the importance of this fight. I want to commend the residents who are willing to fight to win this battle and I want to add my voice and the Greens's strength to their cause. What's happening right now in the Park Hotel in Melbourne marks yet another dark chapter in this country's bipartisan cruel treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. At least 21 of the 46 refugees held there have tested positive to COVID-19. One is in hospital. The rest believe that infection is inevitable and that their lives are in immediate danger. The government was warned this would happen. They were warned that this superinfectious virus would run rampant in the unventilated hotel rooms. It's a COVID incubator, but they didn't care. They chose not to act. These people came here seeking our protection. They were sent offshore to camps that the Labor Party set up. Then, since they came here, the government has completely and utterly failed them. People in my electorate of Melbourne had to summon everything they had to get through all 263 days of lockdown, and many couldn't imagine even one more day, but these men have been in detention for eight years. Eight years! Some arrived as boys and they are now men. Haven't they suffered enough? We know the government can fix this. They released many of the medevac refugees from the Park Hotel eight months ago. They can do it again. With the stroke of a pen, they could grant them permanent protection, get them the treatment they need and let them safely join the community. We cannot take back the years of suffering, but we can stop their torture today. The name of the hospitalised asylum seeker is Mohammad Sohrabi. Prior to contracting the virus, he had requested a vaccine, and he's now saying: 'I don't know what to say. I'm just trying to breathe.' Let them stay, get them the help they need and close the gaps. (Time expired) Surf Lifesaving 110 10:15 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I rise today to recognise the efforts of all the individuals involved with surf lifesaving on the northern beaches and to congratulate the winners of the annual branch awards of excellence. This year the awards were held online on 6 August, and lifesavers and youth lifesavers were recognised for their contributions and achievements. The awards provide an opportunity to recognise the efforts of all volunteers to keep beachgoers safe and their commitment to the local community. These are members who donated their time and who go the extra mile in their contributions to surf lifesaving. Their dedication ensures that each beachgoer in our community is safe when they spend a day at the beach. The awards saw Warriewood Surf Life Saving Club secure Club of the Year this year—an honour which recognises the commitment of the club to its members and the wider community. I congratulate all the winners and wish them all the best as they progress to the Surf Life Saving New South Wales Awards of Excellence to go up against other branches in the state. I particularly want to recognise their efforts during the lockdown to ensure that our community stayed together. Indeed, when the northern beaches were locked down over Christmas and new year—a matter that was bemoaned by so many others—there were members of my community who saw it as an opportunity to make sure that the beaches remain the way they should be for locals and surf lifesaving. But, when we reopened to the rest of the world, surf lifesavers were there on that weekend and every weekend subsequently to make sure that our beaches were kept clean and were kept safe for anyone from anywhere who wanted to enjoy our beaches—the beaches that Australia is so lucky to have. Employment 110 10:17 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Australia faces a skills shortage today but we also face a shortage of the skills that we need for tomorrow. Our skills system suffers from a lack of planning so that we can meet business needs and so that we can help people of all ages to make good decisions about their skills needs so that we can ensure that our economy is building the workforce it needs not just for today but for tomorrow. We know that our economy is changing and we know that it brings with it new policy needs in the digital economy, the clean economy, in health and care, and in new manufacturing. This changing world can no longer afford a lazy, passive government with no sense of aspiration and purpose because the Australian people, Australian businesses, Australian investors and Australian communities all have a sense of purpose and aspire to have a government that joins them in that. In my electorate, the Carrum Downs and Seaford industrial precincts are hubs of new manufacturing. These are committed businesses and workers. They want to see a commitment to a future made in Australia. They want the skills system to work for them. They want a federal government that is on their side. They need a federal Labor government. They want Australia to take climate crisis as an opportunity to become a renewable manufacturing superpower. They want commitment to net zero by 2050 to be more than mere words. A changing economy creates new opportunities and, with it, new needs. The next generation of jobs investment and export opportunities demands that we bring skills and industry policy together to always be planning for the needs of today and tomorrow, because that's what Labor governments do. Skills policy can enable many more workers to participate productively in new industries, but we will need to do some things differently. We might need to look at new frameworks of microcredentials, for example, that could be stacked into full qualifications. We need to foster practical options at the local level—in our suburbs and our regions—and through our TAFEs. Our public TAFEs must always be at the heart of it. Recently I held a manufacturing roundtable with local manufacturers from Carrum and Seaford. The most common theme was a lack of skilled workers. Spiralworks in Carrum Downs cannot find local qualified welders. How can that be? In fact, the situation is so dire that South East Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance are developing a pilot for microcredentials, and I'm meeting with them and Richard Marles soon to discuss the project. We need to take this opportunity to fundamentally rethink how we train our own people. We need to reimagine and rebuild our skills system after the Joyce-Morrison government's savage treatment of our public universities and TAFEs. That's why Labor has a plan for a future made in Australia: a national rail manufacturing plan, a defence industry development strategy, an Australian skills guarantee and a 10-point buy Australian plan to leverage investment by government for future skills and work for Australian communities. That's what my community needs; that's what Australia needs. (Time expired) Banks Electorate: Sport 111 10:20 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 29 September I met with Jackie McCann, the President of St Christophers Netball Club. St Christophers is one of the strongest netball clubs anywhere in the Canterbury Bankstown region, and St Christophers itself actually provides some of the strongest clubs across pretty much every sporting code, be it football, cricket or rugby league. It was really good to talk with Jackie and to find out about the plans for next season. Obviously, it has been a difficult time this year with the season being cut short, but it was really good to hear about the plans for next year and some of the recent successes. Congratulations to Amelia Kirgan from St Christophers Netball Club, who was recently selected in the Australian under-17 netball squad. That's a fantastic achievement and a great testament to everyone at St Christophers, since 1965 a fantastic and very important netball club in our local community. Hurstville United Junior Rugby League Football Club is a fantastic club, and it's really good every year to go along to the awards ceremony and present the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards. Recently, I've been chatting with the president, Holika Taufa, about various issues of importance to the club. One is the need for a high-quality home for junior rugby league in the St George district. Of course, we're fortunate to have Kogarah's Jubilee Oval for the Dragons and other senior teams, but there is a need for a facility for junior rugby league in the area, a place they can call home. It's been really good to talk with Holika and other members of St George junior rugby league clubs on that very important topic, and I look forward to doing more work on it in the future. Forest Rangers are one of the biggest sporting clubs anywhere in the St George region, in any code. They have been on an absolute growth tear in recent years. There are about a thousand players in Forest Rangers, down there at Gannons Park. It was good to catch up with Con Sorras, the president, recently. We talked through various issues of concern down at Gannons Park. Gannons, of course, houses more football players than any other park in St George, and I suspect there would be very few places in Sydney that more footballers call home. There are more than 1,500 players across Forest Rangers and Lugarno FCs, and it's really important that all of the recent improvements to Gannons are built upon; that the pitch remains in the good-quality condition it was in after the big renovation and irrigation project. It was good to talk to Con about those issues, and I look forward to continuing to work with Forest Rangers. Climate Change 111 10:23 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Yesterday was a grim day in the global battle against climate change. In the lead-up to the Glasgow climate conference, scientists have confirmed that the current emissions reduction commitments of governments around the world will see us on track for 2.7 degrees of global warming by 2100. That would be a global catastrophe and would radically change the Australian way of life for our children. In spite of this, we also saw it confirmed yesterday that the Morrison-Joyce government will go to the Glasgow conference with a 2030 emissions reduction target that was set by climate change denier Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. We saw the Morrison-Joyce government announce a commitment to a target of net zero emissions by 2050 yesterday but then release no detail of how it will be achieved, no modelling of what it will cost, no new money to achieve the target and no new legislation to enshrine the target. What little detail there was in the Prime Minister's new pamphlet was laughable. Eighty-five per cent of the emissions reductions to 2050 identified in the Prime Minister's pamphlet came from 'existing policies'. That would be existing climate change policies like the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, policies that every member of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government went to the 2013 election opposing and then spent years trying to destroy. The other 15 per cent came from 'further technology breakthroughs'—technological innovations that they are simply hoping will happen over the next 30 years to get them to net zero. In other words, it's magic beans. They are hoping for magic beans to come and save them. A lot of thought had been put into the marketing of this announcement, though. There was a glossy brochure. There was a new slogan, pinched from the Qantas in-flight magazine: The Australian Way. There was relentless messaging discipline, with the PM and his minister insisting 100 times in a single press conference that his pamphlet was not just a pamphlet but a 'plan'. Australians won't be fooled by this scam. They want an Australian government that is serious about us doing our bit to tackle climate change, not just empty rhetoric. They want a prime minister who will lead on this issue, not be led. They recognise that the world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. Albanese Labor has always believed in net zero by 2050. We didn't have to be dragged there. We've already said that we'll invest $20 billion to rewire the nation, upgrading our national electricity grid to harness Australia's potential as a renewable energy superpower, to drive down power prices and to create thousands of new jobs, particularly in the regions. Rewiring the nation is the most important investment we can make in the renewable energy capability of this nation. It is a no-brainer. Even those opposite should be able to understand it. We will connect 100,000 homes using 400 community batteries. We'll provide tax cuts for electric vehicles and embrace the Australian weekend. The next election will be a choice, and Australians will support Labor. (Time expired) National Security 112 10:27 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I feel compelled to discuss this today, but I do so with a heavy heart. I use these opportunities to speak in the chamber about positive things happening in my electorate of Petrie, so it saddens me to break from this. On 31 March 2016, in the suburb of Kippa-Ring in my electorate, a jealous man, Arona Peniamina, stabbed his wife 29 times with a kitchen knife, with such rage he left the tip of the knife wedged in her head. Sandra Peniamina still bravely tried to escape, but on the family's driveway he finally killed his wife by smashing her head with a bollard. The court heard that Mr Peniamina believed his wife was having an affair and that the children would be taken from him. That Supreme Court jury found him guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. I cannot fathom their thinking in bringing that decision down, but I do know that we have failed Sandra and her children and that we are continuing to fail as a society by allowing that violence to go insufficiently punished. We want to go further on this. This man was not an Australian citizen. In the Senate, this sitting period, we failed federally when Labor and Greens senators defeated the Morrison government's Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill. The bill is aimed at protecting Australians from people who commit serious crimes against them. It aims to protect Australians from the most serious offences and crimes committed by noncitizens, people who are guests of Australia, by preventing them from ever coming here in the first place. Peniamina was not an Australian citizen. He had been afforded the privilege of living in Australia, with all the good fortune that brings, and he forfeited that right when he brutally ended his wife's life. Our legal system sees the states and territories controlling the laws the courts abide by, but federally we control our immigration laws. Members of the Morrison government take very seriously the responsibility to protect our community's safety in the face of serious criminal and national security threats. The migration amendments sought to consider visa cancellation or refusal where a noncitizen has been convicted of offences involving violence against a person, weapons, breaching an apprehended violence order or similar, or non-consensual sexual acts. Australia is not alone in demanding this through its visa standards. We are seeing more and more examples in our judicial system of violent criminals getting sentences under the current 12-month sentencing test. If they are not Australian citizens, we want the right to cancel their visa and kick them out of the country. What are we doing here as representatives of our electorates if we can't pass bills that protect our constituents from violent criminals? Shame on Labor and the Greens with this one. Arona Peniamina revoked his right to enjoy Australia's hospitality, and we do not want the likes of him here. Youth Voice in Parliament Week, Chifley Electorate: Diabetes 112 10:30 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It's a real pleasure to deliver the following speech prepared by Erika Yu, an 18-year-old student from the Chifley electorate, and I want to thank her in advance for her thoughtful words. 'When asked what I want Australia to look like in 20 years, I could list all the things that need improving, from addressing the housing crisis to addressing the climate crisis, and the hopeful restoration of colour in the Great Barrier Reef; from the eradication of period poverty to the improvement of education to do with day-to-day matters, particularly that of sexual health and wellbeing; from a decrease in mental health issues to an equal and equitable society where value is not dependent on age, race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or wealth. But these wants mean nothing without action. For any of the issues prevalent in society, the first step we need to take is to bridge the gap between the people. The pandemic has made obvious and worse the disconnection, distrust and lack of communication or understanding between politicians and the general public. We need more people in parliament in communities, with the people seeing the real lives behind the numbers whilst fostering better relationships and humanising politicians. We need to encourage more discourse to bring to light the issues people care about the most, and create more public advocacy initiatives in campaigns like this one, creating more communication and advocacy outlets that will allow society to work on the most pressing matters of the people, putting the general public's voice at the forefront of progression. The voice of the people heard will create a future that aligns with the vision of the public, thus achieving the changes in society we hope to see. Whilst I do not expect these changes to occur overnight, I call for intergenerational cooperation for a better, brighter, happier and healthier tomorrow. Thank you.' And thank you, Erika, for that. Another person I want to recognise for their passionate advocacy is also a young person from Chifley, Teagan Hodges, who nine years ago was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and, as she says: 'Living with it is full-on. There are no days off, and it can and does change hour to hour.' She is currently raising awareness through the campaign More Tech for More People, where there are subsidies provided for continuous glucose monitors. But that stops when they reach the age of 21, which means that when Teagan turns 21 mid-next year, she'll have to stump up $4,000 extra to fund this. The use of CGMs is crucial in helping people manage their blood glucose levels, and type 1 diabetes won't disappear when they turn 21. Teagan has also highlighted that over 1,000 people live with this in the Chifley electorate, of which 408 will have complications, and there are hundreds that go undiagnosed. And she is, rightly, pushing parliamentarians to provide further support through the More Tech for More People campaign, and I'll certainly be putting my weight behind that very important initiative. Thank you, Teagan, and thank you, Erika, for your advocacy. Central West Leadership Academy, Bartley, Ms Kim 113 10:33 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes Today I'd like to congratulate and wish well in their future endeavours the students of the Central West Leadership Academy based out of Dubbo in my electorate. They have won the Future Problem Solving national finals and qualified for the international competition in the United States. Students from the Central West Leadership Academy placed first and second in their respective categories in the Future Problem Solving national finals this month. The academy's year 9 team placed first in Australia for their community problem-solving entry, Take One Step, where they created a student representative council training manual for student leadership teams to use to combat sexual harassment at school. Year 9 academy student Noah Randell came second in the nation in scenario writing, a creative-writing competition where the story must be set 20 years in the future. Noah wrote a scenario about personalised medicine and its impacts on those who lack access to emerging technology. It's very comforting to know that these students are thinking to the future. They have a positive outlook for their communities. Both academy entries will represent Australia at the Future Problem Solving international finals at the University of Massachusetts in the USA from 8 to 10 June 2022. The principal of the academy, Ms Mandi Randell, was extremely proud of the students' efforts and the outcome they achieved, saying, 'Our school values the six Cs of critical thinking: creativity, citizenship, communication, coding and technology, and collaboration.' I would like to congratulate the students of the academy, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mandi Randell, who has worked so hard to bring this is academy together. She understands that you teach students to their ability, not to their age. The school has shown enormous success, for a small school in western New South Wales, to compete against the large sandstone schools in capital cities. In the final few seconds I have left, I'd like to acknowledge that tomorrow will be last day of work for Kim Bartley, who has been a journalist for 40 years—a large part of that for the Daily Liberal in Dubbo. Kim has shown great passion and diligence in bringing the stories that matter to the communities of Dubbo and the far west. She has a well-deserved retirement coming her way. Kim, all the best. Congratulations on a job well done. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 113 10:36 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I'd like to read a speech from Milli McDonald, from Kardinia college in my electorate: When my grandfather landed in this country, he had nothing but the clothes on his back and eight dollars in his pocket. He had fled Yugoslavia's communist regime. For him, freshly 18, Australia was a welcoming, kind "golden country," full of promise, hopes and dreams for his future family. I am now two months away from turning 18, and 53 years after my grandfather landed, have my own dreams for Australia. In 20 years, I envision a country that presents everyone with the opportunities of the "golden country." I see equitable access to education, healthcare and careers that spans gender, race and sexual orientation. I see us upholding our international responsibilities: Doing our fair share on climate change. Treating those fleeing their homes with kindness and respect. To remember we have "boundless planes to share." Our generation's call to action is on climate. We must not see net zero as a threat, but an opportunity. We have an abundance of natural resources. 20 years gives us the chance to become a green energy powerhouse, to create jobs in green energy. We must "maintain [our] rage and enthusiasm," for gender equality. For racial equality. For climate justice. For refugees. For our "golden country." Milli McDonald is 17 years old. I met her a few weeks ago. She is about to complete year 12, in just a few weeks time, and she hopes to study politics next year at the University of Canberra, and she is very excited about her future. When I met her, she was very keen to talk to me about the misogyny speech made by the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, a speech I was in the House for on that day, which I shared with her. The speech I read is part of the Youth Voice in Parliament Week project, which is run by Raise Our Voice Australia. It has encouraged a number of young people to write speeches to be read in parliament, and I'm one of 40 MPs participating in this project. It holds a particular resonance for me, because a long time ago—in the last century—I did my work experience with Senator Olive Zakharov of the other place. Indeed, in that week Senator Zakharov asked me to write a speech for her to deliver in the Senate, which she did. I have to say it was heavily edited and not many of my words made it, but I was still really excited about it! It was something of an inspiration for me. This project allows us to hear Milli's voice, as we did, and the fine words—much finer than mine, I might say—that she has been able to give us access to today. It's also something of an inspiration for her. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 39 to 10 : 48 Page Electorate: McGrath, Mr Garry 114 10:48 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to acknowledge Garry McGrath, from Casino, who is retiring after more than 42 years of owning and operating Garry McGrath Car Sales. Garry left school at the age of 15 for an apprenticeship to become a mechanic and in 1972 made the switch from mechanic to car salesperson. He started his own sales yard in 1979. Garry was also a founding member of the Casino Car Club. It is interesting to note that the other founding members include Matthew McDonald, the late Noel Murphy and Bill Watson, David Lindsay, John and Ron Frogley, Patrick Vogt, Doug Roche, John Morrissey, Bruce Yates, John Groves, and Angelo and Tilly Gava. The club started as a road safety initiative. In 1981 Garry helped to start the Show n' Shine Car Show at the Casino Beef Week. He and his wife, Cheryl, were married in 1974 and have been business partners for all that time. They have two children, Melissa and Matthew, and three grandchildren, Hugo, Fletcher and Stirling. Garry, I thank you for your service to our community, and I wish you and Cheryl all the best in retirement. Yulgilbar Station is located near Baryulgil on the beautiful Clarence River and has a long history in our region's agriculture. Yulgilbar is a name used by the local Indigenous people that means 'a place of little fishes'. The property today is home to 7,700 cattle on its 35,000 acres. The property has been in the well-known Myer family for more than 60 years. Today I would like to acknowledge Rob Sinnamon, who for the last 20 years has been the general manager of Yulgilbar Station. Rob and his supportive wife Lorraine have been fantastic leaders in the beef industry in our region and are moving on to pursue their own interests. Rob will continue to sit on the board of the Casino Food Co-op and expand their own pastoral holding in Kyogle. Station overseer and long-term employee Brett Ellem is going to step into Rob's role, with Peter Hay as the farming manager. Congratulations, Rob and Lorraine, and the best of luck with your future endeavours. I'd like to acknowledge Michael Moffett, or Moffee, as he's fondly known in our community. Moffee is the morning presenter on Triple M Coffs Coast and was recently announced as a finalist in the Australian Commercial Radio Awards. He has been nominated for the best entertainment presenter category. He is also a finalist in the best station promotion category for Moffee for Breakfast when he broadcast live from London. As part of this he travelled to London to broadcast his show from the Strand Palace hotel. He was on the streets of London daily to record the content of the program before broadcasting live from 9 pm to midnight London time. The awards will be held early next year. Good luck, Moffee. Housing Affordability 115 10:51 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Distressingly, in recent months I've seen a significant increase in the number of women in a desperate state because they can no longer afford a roof over their heads: women with young children forced into homelessness and couch surfing, middle-aged women begging for scarce beds in homeless shelters or sleeping in their cars, women of all ages left vulnerable to homelessness. These women are contacting my office in desperate need of help. The lack of affordable and social housing for people on low incomes has reached crisis point in my electorate of Corangamite, and this has been exacerbated by the pandemic. Housing prices have skyrocketed in my electorate, with people flocking to escape Melbourne during COVID. They're taking advantage of low interest rates and buying local properties, but the property frenzy is driving up property prices and ultimately squeezing the most vulnerable people out of their rental homes. The availability of affordable housing for people seeking to work in the region is also becoming a massive issue, especially in coastal towns like Apollo Bay, Lorne, Anglesea and Torquay. It's particularly challenging for our tourism and hospitality sector to attract casuals when there is little accommodation, but it is those people living on very modest incomes—perhaps living on benefits such as disability support or Veterans' Affairs pensions—who are hurting the most. They can no longer afford escalating rents. Next week, I'll be visiting the local Salvation Army to see for myself the work this organisation is doing to support people in need. Sadly, the Salvos and other organisations are swimming against a massive tide. Data from G21, an alliance of local governments, shows the region needs an extra 6,000 new social housing residences. Similar situations exist right across our nation, yet data released in August by Homelessness Australia shows the Morrison-Joyce government's investment in social housing and homelessness has dropped dramatically. When Labor left office in 2013, the federal government committed $2 billion a year for social and Indigenous housing and homelessness. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, that is about $2.7 billion today. This financial year the Morrison-Joyce government has only budgeted to spend $1.6 billion. That's a massive cut. In contrast, an Albanese Labor government would create the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to build 20,000 social housing properties, with 4,000 of those properties for women and children fleeing family violence and older women at risk of homelessness. There could be no starker difference. While the Morrison-Joyce government has turned its back on our most vulnerable Australians, Labor is working hard to reduce homelessness across Australia. Horticulture Industry 115 10:54 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The plumpest, the juiciest, the reddest, the best—what am I talking about? Young cherries—cherries from Young, of course, and we all know that. Since 1847 they've been growing the plumpest, the juiciest, the reddest, the best cherries in Young. But, I have to say, unless we find 3,000 pickers very soon, when the picking season starts on 1 November the Young cherry growers could be left high and dry. It is cause for great concern in that wonderful town—a town who's rugby league team, I would almost dare to say, is the only team in Australian rugby league that has cherry pickers as its emblem! And why wouldn't it be the cherry pickers? The concerns of the Young cherry growers about the looming harvest labour shortage was raised with me on 5 August. I appreciate that we did some work last year for this very reason, because COVID has left us short of many backpackers. Young requires about 3,000 pickers, most of whom are backpackers or professional pickers. It is a situation which caused us to have a very good teleconference. The Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia zoomed in on the teleconference. We had Michelle Walton, Samantha Flanery, Joanne Wells, and the member for Cootamundra, who has also been very much part and parcel of this, on the teleconference. The minister understands full well that the agriculture visa, which has been put in place by the Nationals and the Liberals, is going to play its part. But we also need some of the border restrictions, some of those state-sanctioned restrictions on cherry pickers and the like, lifted so that pickers can come down from Queensland. Of course, often the picking season starts in Queensland. They pick mandarins and other things and then come to pick the cherries in Young and in Orange as well. They also come to Griffith and then they go down to Tasmania. The pool of labour available to harvest cherries is significantly smaller, as I said, but thankfully we've got the Harvest Trail. I urge pickers to go to www.harvesttrail.gov.au. Indeed, the ag visa is also going to play a part. That's why we have put it in place: to ease the concerns of these growers and to ease the concerns of these farmers. Finally we're going to have another good bumper season. They've gone through so much, with drought, bushfires, floods and COVID. The farmers are looking towards a bumper harvest. We need the people there. The Harvest Trail and the ag visa are going to play a part in addressing these issues. Lilley Electorate: Infrastructure 116 10:57 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Gympie Road in my electorate of Lilley acts as both a major highway and a suburban connector road, and it does neither well. If you ask any northsider, they will tell you to avoid Gympie Road during peak hour. It's basically a car park. The six-lane, 10-kilometre road, which stretches from the end of the Airport Link tunnel at Kedron through to Beams Road at Carseldine, is the most congested road in Queensland. Gympie Road regularly dominates state-run surveys and polls about the least safe and most congested roads. Since 2015 Gympie Road has been identified by the RACQ and the AAMI Crash Index as the most dangerous and one of the most congested roads in Queensland. The Morrison government's own Infrastructure Priority List categorises Gympie Road as 'high priority'. A generation of planning failures has meant that locals living on the northside face daily commuting times two to three times longer than those travelling the same distance from the CBD on the southside, despite not having to cross the Brisbane River. Drivers must transition from the 100-kilometre-per-hour, six-lane Bruce Highway directly onto a heavily congested, substandard suburban road, with traffic lights every few hundred metres and no direct or convenient alternative path into the city. The congestion is compounded by the second-largest shopping centre in Australia, Westfield Chermside, sitting at the corner of Gympie Road and Hamilton Road. On an average day, 100,000 cars travel along Gympie Road. These numbers are only set to skyrocket. Key findings of the north-west transport network strategic assessment found that over the next 20 years daily road trips in this region are set to increase by 40 to 60 per cent. The first step towards fixing Gympie Road is to recognise the crucial role it plays as a commuter highway and make it part of the national highway network so that it will be eligible for critical federal funding. The second step is for the federal government to start the Gympie Road-Chermside Road project business case, which I included in my 2021 Lilley budget submission. This year marks 10 years since the Brisbane City Council delayed their promised upgrade of the Brighton foreshore because of the Brisbane floods. Now, a decade on, the upgrade remains unfunded despite countless community petitions and consistent local advocacy from representatives such as Councillor Jared Cassidy. Disappointingly, the Morrison government rejected my funding request on behalf of our community in the 2021 Lilley budget submission, but my fight continues. I invite northsiders to sign my petition calling on the Brisbane City Council and the federal government to deliver the funding for a much-needed upgrade to the Brighton foreshore. The foreshore is an essential element of recreation for northsiders on the weekends, particularly for those in Brighton and Sandgate. It encourages healthy, active living. Our birds live there. Our dogs love it. Upgrade the Brighton foreshore. COVID-19: Vaccination, COVID-19: Domestic Travel 116 11:00 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I was very pleased with the news late yesterday afternoon that the state government in South Australia has now set an open-up day of 23 November, when we are expected to reach the target of 80 per cent fully vaccinated, for those over the age of 16. We're currently at 63.1 per cent, with 79.6 per cent first-dose vaccinated, and we can pretty easily extrapolate that we're a little over three weeks from first dose to second dose, with not many people using AstraZeneca at this stage. That's a little disappointing in a way. I think New South Wales has reached the point of 85 per cent fully vaccinated, so in reality South Australia is about six weeks behind. I think this is probably the penalty of success. It could easily be argued that because we haven't had the chronic outbreaks of coronavirus in South Australia we've been a little less desperate to get vaccinated. In fact, there are no new cases as of yesterday. There are two active cases, and both of those came in on aircraft, as far as I know. We have zero community transmission. We've had 918 cases in total, for the whole pandemic, and just four people have succumbed, and that was in the early days. It is clearly an outstanding result. On 23 November borders will open and those who are fully vaccinated—and this remains an incentive for those people who are not fully vaccinated or not vaccinated at all to get on the bandwagon—will be allowed to come into South Australia without isolating, unless they are from an LGA that has less than 80 per cent vaccination or from one that is a hotspot. I'm looking forward to that. I will be in isolation by tomorrow night, but the next time I come to Canberra I'll hopefully be able to go home and not isolate. I want to dwell a little bit on the national scene. There has been a lot of criticism of the government's vaccination program. At various times it has been described—by those opposite, those in the press and others—as bungled, botched, failed and a shambles. I look back and see that it was Greg Hunt who first said, in November last year, that we'll have Australia vaccinated by the end of October. Well, if we miss the end-of-October target, we'll have only missed it by that much! In fact, despite all the rubbish that was piled up on the government—the other side of politics actually put barriers in the way and destroyed confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine—we have met that target. COVID-19: Income Support Payments, Edney, Ms Ida 117 11:03 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Well, the previous speaker might be surprised to hear my speech now, because I rise to inform the House of the people who've slipped through the many cracks of the Morrison government's so-called COVID-19 safety net. It was developed in a way that actively excluded people, like university staff, and overseas-owned companies like dnata. I have spoken to uni students and young people in my electorate who didn't qualify for JobKeeper even though they had two or three jobs, like my constituent Matthew, who worked in both retail and hospitality before lockdown but was denied JobKeeper after losing all his jobs. Because he didn't meet the 12-month continuity requirement, he couldn't get the payment. He had never been out of work. These young people like Matthew have bills to pay. They pay rent. They have to feed themselves and keep their homes warm in winter. They were left behind. Another constituent, Anna, contracted COVID some weeks ago. Her whole family caught it, including her 13-year-old daughter, and tragically her father passed away from the virus. She paid for her father's funeral with the disaster payment she received, and she was grateful for that. But after getting COVID she still had symptoms. She was exhausted and too weak to get out of bed. She coughs persistently. She has muscle pains, and is too sick to return to work. However, despite her extended sickness, she couldn't access any further disaster payments from Centrelink. According to the government she had recovered, and must go back to work. What else could she do? She's a single mum and she has a daughter to provide for. Not only has the government safety net failed Anna, but it has exposed that they failed to account for the impacts of long COVID. The World Health Organization recently released a standard definition of long COVID. The condition can last for months, and studies show that around one in three people with COVID-19 will have symptoms longer than the typical two weeks. How is the Morrison government working to prepare our health and welfare systems for people who are experiencing long COVID? When will the government put people first? I would like to briefly tell the House about an extraordinary nurse, a long-time colleague of mine, who retired this month after 46 years, Ms Ida Edney. She began her nursing career in Perth, at the Royal Perth Hospital. She was nursing there when Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin, and she cared for the injured. She moved to Sydney in 1979, working in and managing aged-care facilities. Then, in 1985, she began the rest of her working life in Melbourne, at the Austin Hospital, where I also worked. What an amazing nurse Ida is. A trailblazer, she nursed the first liver transplant patient at the Austin Hospital, helping refine protocols and care for transplant patients thereafter. In 1997 Ida became the nurse unit manager of the endoscopy unit at Austin. When she started it was a burgeoning area of medicine, and Ida set about modernising the hospital practises, the environment and patient care. She has left after 46 years of nursing, and I'm proud to call her my friend. Lindsay Electorate: Manufacturing Industry 117 11:06 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Electric buses, windows, doors, trucks, coffee and masks: this is what Aussie made is in my electorate of Lindsay. Like 97 per cent of Australians, we know that Aussie made means local jobs. Ninety-five per cent of us know it also means high-quality products. But now is the time that we put that knowledge into action and actually buy Aussie made. Local businesses have been doing it tough over the pandemic. But, thanks to the hard work of Australians keeping each other safe and getting vaccinated—proudly, my electorate is into the nineties for first doses—we're opening up and businesses are getting back to doing what they do best. That's great news for our economy, and every Australian who wants high-quality, safe, homegrown, locally made products that support businesses to create and sustain more local jobs. People in my electorate of Lindsay know this well, because we're in the heart of Western Sydney, and Western Sydney is the heartbeat of Australian manufacturing. There are almost 700 manufacturers in my community, and 95 per cent of them are small businesses. I want to see this number grow. That's why I am proud to be supporting our local businesses that are employing apprentices and trainees. When I'm out and about, I see manufacturers employing young female apprentices, and they are proud of this. It's wonderful to see more women getting into these non-traditional jobs. Across Australia there are one million people employed in manufacturing. In the past year, more than 100,000 new manufacturing jobs were created in sectors like food, machinery, equipment, transport and fabricated metal production. Something that I am really excited to see, and there is so much potential in Western Sydney, is around new manufacturing and advanced manufacturing of medical equipment. We're also supporting agribusiness. I'm also super excited that we have Sydney Science Park coming into my electorate. This will mean more kids educated and trained in STEM and taking on science, and increasing our future manufacturing capabilities in Western Sydney. So we're backing manufacturers in Western Sydney. I will always support them 100 per cent so that they can grow their businesses, buy new equipment, take on more apprentices, create more jobs, which is absolutely essential, and thrive in our new era of Australian manufacturing. Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:09