2025-11-04 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 4 November 2025

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson If I can explain the arrangements for today: I've got a declaration to refer matters to the Federation Chamber and a suspension motion that I'll be moving shortly. I ask that we don't deal with that immediately, that we deal with that later in the day. In advising that, let me first of all say there will certainly be a late-night sitting tonight. Whether it is a late-night sitting in this House only or whether it is a late-night sitting in the Federation Chamber and this House is something that the government will look at; we will look at speaking lists and make a decision later in the day. I think there is no better way to celebrate my birthday than the parliament sitting as long as possible today! We'll move that resolution later today but not immediately. I will also just let members know—because a few members, particularly the Manager of Opposition Business, have been asking—where we're up to with the calendar for next year. I advise we won't have that finalised until the final week of sittings, but people should work on the basis that we're expecting to return on 3 February; that's the week we expect to return. BILLS 1 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 1

Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025

Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 and the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 Consideration of Legislation 1 12:03 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I note the Leader of the House's remarks about the calendar; I thank him for that. We'll celebrate the Burke birthday sitting tonight; I look forward to that! I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent all remaining proceedings on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 taking place in this Chamber. The opposition has looked carefully at what the government is attempting to do here. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 should go to the Federation Chamber, but it was never intended to have matters of supreme importance to this parliament, like freedom of information—the primary governing legislation that protects citizens' rights against this government—dealt with in the Federation Chamber. We are moving today to stop this Labor government sending what is an important bill to the media and to the public—it was a commitment of the Prime Minister's at several elections that the government would have increased transparency and integrity in their legislation—off to the Federation Chamber. We do need to debate it here. We've canvassed widely across the crossbench and the parliament, and there is extreme concern for the government's agenda in relation to freedom of information bills. Sending it to the Federation Chamber sends a signal that this parliament is not taking this primary piece of legislation as seriously as it ought to in relation to what is a critical matter to its citizenry. This government came to office promising increased transparency and increases to the protections of citizens against government, and we do need to suspend the Standing Orders so we can get this bill back to the House. That's why we didn't oppose the Leader of the House's motion—because he had two bills attached to it. The customs bill can go there—that's a simple matter for the House. No-one in this House would suggest that the freedom of information changes the government is proposing is a simple bill or an unimportant bill. Let the government come forward today and say this matter isn't important enough to be debated in the primary chamber of our country's parliament, the House of Representatives. We have moved with great passion to make sure that this is debated here. It should be in the full light of scrutiny, in the daylight that the Prime Minister has called for repeatedly on many occasions of the media, before every single member here, and before the public who can be here to witness this in the galleries, and who are here today in many numbers to see us speak to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill and to access their rights against government. There are a lot of people here; I want to note that. In the 47th Parliament, amendments in 201 bills about this issue—or 44 per cent of all bills presented to the House—were referred to the Federation Chamber, sometimes with objections from the opposition. The government is regularly sending matters to the Federation Chamber that probably shouldn't be going there, so we will object where that's possible. This is the first time we have objected in this parliament. I want a government minister to come forward and say 'Freedom of information is a matter that should be shunted to a second chamber, because it isn't controversial.' I can assure the government and the Prime Minister that their changes to freedom of information are highly controversial and deserve a serious examination by this parliament. We know what the government are trying to do here; they are trying to restrict freedom of information for citizens. They are trying to charge people as a way of limiting access to freedom of information requests   —the foundation of our democratic system. It's not just my view; it's a view of the Prime Minister's. It's his view, and he can come here and tell us why he is allowing his Leader of the House to move this to the Federation Chamber when he has insisted that Australia needs increased transparency from its government. I look forward to that contribution. In the perspective that I have just raised, the Federation Chamber has become a legislative clearinghouse, and that is bad for democracy and bad for transparency on a bill that is so important to democracy and to transparency. The opposition and many of the crossbench cannot accept that in relation to a bill like this. This is a reasonable argument, and I know members sitting opposite understand that. I know that they like to have views exchanged between us about this. Let every single member of the government come forward with passion to say, 'We are restricting access to freedom of information under our changes,' let them argue why it's better for the executive and their own government to have less scrutiny over them. I can tell you, having been in the executive of a government, freedom of information provides a great discipline to ministers. It's good for ministers, it's good for their office and their staff, it's good for their departments. It means citizens have fundamental rights to get information when they need it. It has led to so many things in so many governments, I can't list them all here today. I can only say to this House that the process—the sacred process in our democracy—whereby citizens should have access to the executive to say, 'We know something has gone on, we have a right to access it,' that exchange between citizen and executive government is an important fundamental. That's why this bill should not be sent to the Federation Chamber and that's why this suspension is saying, 'We must debate this here.' Let the citizenry witness; let the kids who come here to say 'democracy is fantastic' come and see the exchange of ideas. We will advocate as a coalition for greater scrutiny and transparency over the executive of government. Let government members come forward and say, 'We don't want that, we want more restricted access, we want limitations on the access regime that people will have under freedom of information.' Let them say that this should be sent to a secondary chamber where the debate won't so fulsome, where it won't be scrutinised and where it won't be in transparency. It's not lost on anyone listening to this debate, or anyone who's concerned about the freedom of information. I can tell you the entire media gallery is concerned about their access under this. It doesn't matter what their political persuasion, their background or their length of time in the gallery, the gallery—if they had a vote in the gallery—would say: 'This is limiting our access to information, and we oppose this bill.' That would be it, if they had a vote. They're the extra chamber. But they should be here to witness it. They can't all fit in the Federation Chamber. There's another important argument. They want to be here. They didn't know this was on the agenda. I'm sure we're going to tell them very shortly and say: 'Get in here and help us defeat this government on freedom of information.' And we know they're going to turn up in numbers, en masse. So that's another reason why we need to have this debate in this House, in the full glare of the media. I welcome it, because there are not many times where we can all be in alignment. But the crossbench, I know, have concerns about this. The media have grave concerns about it. Individual transparency and freedom organisations have already raised that this is a massive overreach from the government. It just got a massive majority, but this wasn't on the platform—there was no mandate to reduce transparency or to reduce integrity. In fact, the Prime Minister promised the exact opposite from his government. So this is not the mandate the Australian people gave the government—to restrict freedom of information and to take a step backwards in relation to transparency. They have said, clearly, that they believed the Prime Minister when he said: 'We need the full light of day over government operations. We need the full light of day and scrutiny. Let the sunshine in.' Well, let the sunshine in. We can't charge people to let the sunshine in; that's just not going to work. In fact, we know what that means—a regime to increase the cost means, effectively, that people won't be able to afford access to freedom of information. You can see, just from my own contribution, how important this matter is. We can't let this go to the Federation Chamber. I know the Leader of the House is considering it. He's weighing up the matter very carefully. I think, on the customs amendment, we agreed—that was something that could go to Federation Chamber. The customs amendment is a straightforward matter for the government. But on freedom of information—not for us, as an opposition, not for the member for Hume, not for the member for Lindsay, but for each individual citizen who has come to the gallery today to access information from their own government, their rights will be restricted under this proposed bill from the government. So we want to stand up for them today. We want to stand up for our friends in the media, who also deserve access. Frankly speaking, on the serious point here, all governments need this discipline. This will weaken the quality of your government. So I say to any of the backbenchers that are wavering—I can see their faces, frowning in concern at what I'm saying—your executive will be weaker. Ironically, that may help you get to the front! I'm just saying: you want to run a good government; I'm sure you do—and I'm sure every member here wants to run a good government—but your executive will be weaker; your discipline will be less. More importantly, in an era of big government—with more public servants than ever and bigger and more bloated bureaucracies—citizens need to access the information they need. They need rights against their own government. And the freedom of information regimes are fundamental rights. They belong in the hands of our citizenry. We oppose the government sending this to a secondary chamber. This is not a clearing-house issue. This is not a debate that should be sent somewhere to just ram it through or have no scrutiny. In fact, ironically, this is the bill about scrutiny of government! It should be scrutinised by this House. It should be watched by everybody here and everyone that wants to be here. Let's have this debate in this House. Let's have a fulsome debate. We want to hear arguments. We want to hear why the Prime Minister was wrong when he said, 'We want more transparency and more scrutiny,' and why whoever designed this bill got it wrong in restricting citizens' rights, restricting the media's rights, and restricting what has been a well-functioning system, for all governments, of access to information. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Macnamara, the chief government whip and the chief opposition whip and the member for Longman are not in their seats. You can't interject if you're not in your seat. I'm just reminding everyone. I'm not saying you did, but, everyone, we're just going to have normal rules. Is the motion seconded? 12:14 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I second the motion. The House of Representatives is the pre-eminent debating forum in this country, and, on an issue that is as important as government accountability and transparency, I would have thought that this government would relish the opportunity to have the debate in this chamber. I've had the privilege of serving in this place for nine years, mostly on that side of the House rather than this side of the House, and I had the opportunity for six of those nine years to watch the Leader of the House go from Defcon 5 to Defcon 1 over issues around transparency and accountability. In fact, no-one does Defcon 1 like the Leader of the House. The issue of government transparency and accountability was, according to those members opposite—the government—one of their principal tenets, one of their principal pillars. I sat there and listened to speech after speech about how important it is to ensure that we have accountability in this place. So you can only imagine my great surprise, when the chamber has an opportunity to debate a bill that talks about significantly altering the Freedom of Information Act, about significantly watering down the powers of the people to hold their government to account, that this government wants to send it off to the Federation Chamber, where none of you folk in the gallery will get an opportunity to look at it or listen to it. The students up there all want this matter debated in the House of Representatives, because this is the pre-eminent forum in this country. Where the government consistently banged on for years and years about the importance of honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability, what do we get? We get the Leader of the House moving a motion to squirrel it away to the Federation Chamber. I say, even though it's his birthday: shame on him. I say to the Leader of the House, based on the previous speech and mine, I think we're getting to you. I know, deep down, that the Leader of the House has some modicum of respect for executive accountability. The concept of executive accountability is one of our fundamental tenets— Mr Burns 278522 Is this an audition for leader? Has he had a haircut as well? Mr WALLACE 265967 I take that interjection from the member for Macnamara— Mr Taylor 231027 He's good: that's it; it's in Hansard! Mr WALLACE 265967 and I hope he's in his correct seat, but I don't think he is. This is an incredibly important issue. I will speak to the substance of the bill very shortly, and I encourage everybody to hang around for a few moments afterwards. But I implore the Leader of the House to let the sunshine in. This chamber has a skylight, and the best form of disinfectant is sunlight. The Leader of the House might notice that the Federation Chamber does not have a skylight. The House of Representatives will let the sun in and hold to account—it is a sign, it is a metaphor—the executive and this hopeless, arrogant government that would try to introduce a bill that would lessen accountability yet squirrel it away to the Federation Chamber. For all those people who are listening on their radios, tuning in right now, I ask this question: have you ever even heard of the Federation Chamber? Most Australians will never have heard of the Federation Chamber. They want this debate heard right here today in the House of Representatives. 12:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I do appreciate the gift of a procedural debate today. So, thank you to the Manager of Opposition Business for bringing it on. I'd remind the seconder of the motion that the clocks that count down refer to a time limit, not a time target. When you run out of material and you're left to talk about where the skylights in the building are, you're always allowed to sit down before the clock gets to zero. The option is always available to you. It is important to explain for the Hansard that, when the Manager of Opposition Business was referring to the fact that the media can come into this room and have the scrutiny of physically being in this room, he gestured to a gallery—which Hansard will not record unless I refer to it now—that actually has nobody in it from the press gallery at this point in time. But the press gallery is able to monitor this in the exact same way as the press gallery is able to monitor the Federation Chamber, because they're both televised and they're both online. They're both available. They're filmed constantly. But I can tell you that the argument about why we send certain bills to the Federation Chamber has been raised, and I'm surprised that it's being claimed that this is where you send legislation that you don't want anyone to see. Last Tuesday, those opposite moved that their own private member's bill on mandatory minimum sentences be brought on for debate, and guess where they said they wanted it to be debated? The Federation Chamber, the room without a skylight—that's where they wanted their own private member's bill to be debated. We've often had various debates go up there. I hope those opposite would never describe legislation like their own private member's bill, given the topic area, or state sponsors of terrorism or hate crimes legislation in that way. Significant legislation goes there all the time. What we always look at when we're working out where different pieces of legislation should go is the speaking list, because the speaking list gives an indication of how many members are likely to want to be able to speak. I've got a copy of the speakers list. The environment legislation has been all through the media. It's very important legislation. I introduced it last Thursday. The debate will begin with the relevant shadow minister making a speech, and then the debate will go on. How many people have put their names down to speak on the environment legislation? 48. When we're prioritising which legislation goes here and which goes to the Federation Chamber, I think it's completely significant that a bill that 48 members of parliament have indicated that they want to speak on—a lot are those opposite; more are on the government side, but still I think it's in the order of 18 or something opposition members—be debated in the main chamber. That matters. Regarding the bill that they've just spoken about, the shadow minister always speaks in the chamber, so the speech from the shadow minister was in the chamber, and that was part of the declaration I've already made. Guess how many people have put their names on the list to speak on freedom of information other than the first speaker? Zero. So we actually have a situation right now where those opposite are taking up 25 minutes of the House's time, the House where they say the debate should happen, to have a debate about bringing a debate here where there are no additional speakers who have put their names forward at all, not one. Forty-eight people put themselves forward for a piece of legislation, so we scheduled the debate for here. No-one other than the shadow minister put their name forward for the freedom-of-information legislation, and they're wanting to have us vote on where no-one should speak. That's what this vote is about. We've just had their speeches, and we're now going to have to bring everybody in here to vote on where the bill with no-one listed to speak should be debated, because that's the issue with transparency. That's what's in front of us right now. I'm sure, now that this has been exposed— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The leader will pause. The Minister for Aged Care and Seniors will cease interjecting, and so will the member for Hume. We're just going to dial it down a bit. Mr BURKE DYW I was feeding off of him. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm not interested in 'feeding'. I'm interested in keeping order in the House. Mr BURKE DYW As I've said before, we look at the speaking lists. We have a speaking list where we have 48 people wanting to speak, so we put that on for debate. We have a speaking list where no-one other than the shadow minister puts themselves forward to speak and so we put that bill to the Federation Chamber. It is a logical way to manage the House, to make sure that this chamber always has business before it. There are times in the Federation Chamber when, because there are bills that very few people have put themselves down for, it ends up running out of business. It's fine for the Federation Chamber to complete its business, but this House needs to keep going. We therefore favour the bills with the longest speaking lists. That's what has happened. We've heard passionate speeches saying that no-one should be listed to speak and we've heard passionate speeches about skylights. It's probably time that we brought a very silly motion to an end and voted on it. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.  

The House divided. [12:29]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

45 AYES Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. (Teller) Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tehan, D. T. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Young, T. J. 84 NOES Abdo, B. J. Albanese, A. N. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:34 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I seek leave to table the opposition's speaking list on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill, with 14 speakers at the moment and continuing to grow by the moment. Mr Burke DYW I don't think we've ever tabled speaking lists, and this is clearly a new document. There's a process that the whips do. I presume, if you have to talk to the whip about it—you are the whip, aren't you? How do you not know the process? Leave's not granted. The SPEAKER 53517 Leave is not granted, but we'll ensure that the lists are circulated. BILLS 6 BILLS Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 6

Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025

Second Reading 6 12:35 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Freedom of information is not a privilege handed down by government. It is a right owed to the Australian people who elect us—that is, to serve them. When Australians ask their government for information, they are not being difficult. They are exercising their basic right of citizenship, and the documents of government belong to the people. This bill before us, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, takes that ownership away. The government dresses it up as modernisation. I need to be very clear here. This bill does not modernise the Freedom of Information Act; it weakens it. In fact, it tramples it. It does not simplify access; it restricts it. Australians expect a modern Australia where transparency isn't compromised or withheld, and they expect a government that speaks plainly, answers honestly and trusts the people with the truth. This bill moves the FOI system from a presumption of openness to a presumption of control. And that is a profound change to the character of our democracy. Before I go further, I want to thank my colleagues the member for Berowra, the former shadow attorney-general and the Leader of the Opposition for their early and tireless work in exposing what this bill really means. They have articulated the stakes with precision and courage. The member for Berowra has called this bill for what it is: it's a truth tax, a proposal that makes Australians pay to know what their government is doing. And the Leader of the Opposition has warned that secrecy is becoming the defining feature of this government. The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right. Since taking office, Labor has promised integrity but delivered opacity. The government has normalised non-disclosure agreements when consulting with stakeholders. They've written secret manuals instructing public servants how to answer Senate estimates questions. They've flouted Senate orders for the production of documents. And we already have a transparency problem under this government. In Australia, at the federal level, the proportion of freedom of information requests granted in full has fallen from around 59 per cent in 2011-12 to approximately 25 per cent in 2023-24. Freedom of information operates as a practical tool for transparency and accountability. It is the mechanism through which Australians—journalists, charities, researchers and even ordinary citizens—uncover the truth about decisions that affect them. Effective FOI leads to greater openness in government. When it fails, mistakes multiply in the dark. This bill has no allies outside government. Every credible transparency organisation, media outlet and integrity body has condemned it. When a law designed for openness can't attract a single voice of support from those who champion transparency, that tells you everything you need to know. And the motion that was moved by the Leader of the House just before goes one step further, because this government doesn't want this debate to be had in this main chamber. On the Sunshine Coast, in my electorate of Fisher, people expect straight dealing from their government. They expect to see how that money is spent—how hospitals are run and how infrastructure decisions are made. Australia's Constitution rests on informed choice. That means citizens must have access to information to inform judgements. Secrecy undermines that design. It unplugs the democratic machinery. In 2023-24 approximately 25 per cent of FOI requests were granted in full; however, 89 per cent of those were released with redactions, meaning just around five per cent of all FOI requests were released without any redactions. The problem is not too many FOI requests; it is too few answers. There are 967 unresolved reviews, and agencies are routinely breaching timeframes. That is not efficiency; it's dysfunction. Because the public will be the most affected by this bill, let's look squarely at what it does. There are nine schedules to this bill. For the public benefit, this means the bill is divided into nine distinct part—nine steps backwards for transparency. Schedule 1 rewrites the very purpose of the act. Where once the law said government information should be released unless there is a good reason to withhold it, under this bill it will say that information should be released only if doing so is consistent with the proper functioning of government. That is a lawyer's trick. It's a shift in balance so subtle that it hides its magnitude. Once you make the proper functioning of government an equal goal, you hand every agency an escape route—they can refuse disclosure, claiming it protects orderly government, and the culture of secrecy wins. Labor promised integrity and yet they deliver opacity. You can't campaign on light and legislate for shade, but that is exactly what this government is doing. Schedule 2 bans anonymous requests. The Labor government claims this will protect national security from bots and foreign actors. That argument does not survive contact with reality. Once a document is released under FOI it is public. Anyone, anywhere, can see it. Who the applicant is makes no difference to a hostile foreign actor, but it makes an enormous difference to the whistleblower, the advocate, the junior official or the citizen who fears reprisal. Anonymity protects the vulnerable; it does not endanger the nation. Schedule 3 introduces a discretionary 40-hour processing cap. That is somehow sold as efficiency. In truth, it is permission to stop searching once things get difficult. The big, complex, multi-agency requests—the very ones that expose systemic problems—will be the first to hit the wall. It tells the public: your request is too hard, your question is too expensive and your patience is irrelevant. Schedule 4 changes the statutory timeframe from 30 days to 30 working days. That may sound technical. It means six weeks instead of four. In practice, with extensions, delays and consultations, it means months before any decisions. Then comes schedule 7, the most dangerous of them all. It expands the cabinet exemption to include documents that describe or refer to cabinet material. It therefore allows agencies to refuse requests without even searching for the documents. It broadens the deliberative processes exemption so far that almost any piece of advice or internal discussion could be sealed away indefinitely. That is not protecting cabinet confidentiality; that is institutionalising the prevention of political embarrassment. Factual material, which by long tradition should released, will now be buried alongside opinion. The release of unappetising political criticisms is a cross all political parties have had to bear—parties of government, at least—and it's a crucial part of governing, because every government that has faced scrutiny has ultimately been strengthened by it. The result is that, under this bill, Australians will see only the announcement—never the debate or the consideration that led to it. Some may call this weakness; others will call it lack of accountability. It is both. This bill is not an isolated act. It is a part of a pattern—a pattern of control, concealment and centralisation. We have seen the same instinct in the refusal to release modelling on energy policy, in the endless redactions on defence procurement and in the handling of the Prime Minister's own diary. The Centre for Public Integrity has shown that fewer than one in four FOI requests are now fully granted, down from half just two years ago. That is the lowest level of transparency in 30 years—and that was before this bill. If this is how the government behaves under the existing law, imagine how it will behave when the law itself gives it a licence to hide. Who loses when transparency dies? Not governments—they find it more comfortable. Not corporations—they have lawyers and lobbyists. It is the ordinary Australian who loses: the citizen who wants to know how their aged-care provider is regulated; the local journalist following the money trail through a community grant; the community legal centre fighting for a fair hearing for a client; and charities and not-for-profits across this country, already stretched, who cannot afford to pay new fees or wait another six months for an answer that arrives half-redacted, if they're lucky. This bill would make the public's right to know depend on the size of their bank accounts and the patience of their lawyers. That is not democracy. The government says this bill is about efficiency. That claim deserves to be tested line by line. Efficiency is not achieved by making it easier to say no; efficiency is achieved by fixing resourcing, training and culture. It's achieved by clearing backlogs, not legalising delay. Right now, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is underfunded and overwhelmed. Applicants wait years for reviews. The commissioner's decisions are often ignored. Instead of fixing that, this government proposes to narrow rights and expand excuses. It blames the public for using the law too well. Let's take a closer look at the new 40-hour processing cap. On the Sunshine Coast, if a citizen wants to see correspondence about a hospital project, an aged-care audit or a regional roads upgrade, they will likely need more than 40 hours of agency time to find and process the files. This cap says to those citizens: 'Your question takes too long. It's too complicated. It does not suit the government.' What if the information exposes waste? What if it shows the department ignored warnings? The harder the search, the stronger the reason for disclosure—not refusal. If the government were serious about fairness, it would replace this cap with a duty to assist. Agencies would have to work with the applicant to narrow the scope and release documents in stages. That is what transparency looks like in practice. Next, the bill introduces application fees, to be set later by regulation. A government that promised openness, transparency and accountability now wants Australians to pay to participate in their own democracy. As the member for Berowra said, this is a truth tax. You pay to play. You pay to see what your government is doing with your taxes. For big corporations, that may be fine. They can absorb that cost. However, for the small community paper in the Glass House Mountains, for the environmental volunteer group in Maleny, for the carer in Beerwah trying to understand why aged-care services were cut, those fees are an impermeable wall. Freedom of information should not be a premium service for those who can afford it. It should be the ordinary right of every Australian. The ban on anonymous requests strikes at the most basic democratic protection: the ability to speak truth to power without fear. Imagine a public servant who discovers serious waste or wrongdoing. Under this bill, if they seek to test what documents exist or whether advice was followed, they have to do so in their own name. They must expose themselves to the very system that they are questioning. This bill tells public servants that concealment is safer than candour and that silence is the smarter career move. Anonymity has always been a safety valve for conscience. To remove it is to choke that valve closed forever. The government hides behind talk of bots and foreign actors, but, as the Leader of the Opposition said in her article in the Canberra Times, Labor's excuses about bots and foreign actors are a smokescreen. The real effect of these changes will be fewer documents, higher costs and more excuses to keep Australians in the dark. She is exactly right. This government talks about the importance of this bill impacting upon national security. They organised a briefing for the former shadow attorney-general and then cancelled it at the last minute and said, 'If you want a briefing, it'll have to be in the PHBR'—the Parliament House briefing room—'but you'll have to bring the home affairs shadow with you.' That meeting has never happened, nor has it been offered to me as the new shadow attorney-general. I'll move on now to the expanded cabinet exemption. No-one disputes that cabinet confidentiality is essential to good government. Ministers must be able to deliberate privately, but this bill goes far beyond that. It protects not only cabinet papers but any document that merely refers to them. That could mean briefing notes, talking points or factual summaries prepared for other purposes. Under this test, almost anything could be claimed as cabinet related if it is politically awkward. As a former barrister, I can tell the House what happens next. The culture of refusal hardens. Every request touching a policy question is deemed cabinet in confidence. Every internal email becomes deliberative. Every appeal drags on until the issue is cold. That is not sound decision-making. It is the quiet consolidation of power carried out in the shadows where accountability cannot reach. Perhaps the most audacious change is the power to refuse requests without even looking for the documents. Let's pause there for a moment. The government wants agencies to say, 'We have not checked, but we are confident it is exempt.' That undermines every safeguard of fairness and review. If there is no search, there is no record of what was withheld, no basis for an appeal and no accountability for misuse. Even the small print matters. Changing 30 days to 30 working days adds more than two weeks to every request. Combine that with consultation extensions and remittals and a simple FOI can stretch into months. Time is not neutral. Delay kills stories. It exhausts citizens. It lets wrong decisions fade from memory before the truth emerges. The truth is that this bill is part of a much bigger picture—a steady erosion of transparency since Labor took office. Under this Prime Minister, fewer documents are being released than under any government in 30 years. The Centre for Public Integrity says compliance with Senate orders has fallen to record lows. This government has pioneered non-disclosure agreements in consultation with stakeholders. It has cut staff for those in parliament whose job it is to hold government to account. It has even tried to control what questions can be asked in Senate estimates. Secrecy has become a reflex, not an exception. What happens when you legislate secrecy? When one hides their mistakes, they multiply. This breeds complacency. It hollows out trust. This bill does not make for good government. Freedom of information is not comfortable for governments, and nor should it be. It is supposed to make power uncomfortable. It is supposed to make us as politicians, as the executive, answerable. Governments that fear scrutiny do not trust the people, and, when governments do not trust the people, the people stop trusting government. That is how cynicism takes root. That is how democracies weaken. Trust is already an issue in Australian politics. The conduct of the now government when in opposition made it an election issue in the lead-up to the poll in 2022. The government's hypocrisy on this issue is breathtaking. Every day, I see the expectations Australians hold for their representatives, on the Sunshine Coast and right across this country. They expect their elected representatives to be honest, open and accountable. They do not expect every email or cabinet note to be made public, but they do expect the truth. In my own electorate of Fisher, people care deeply about how health funding is allocated, how infrastructure projects are decided, how modern families are supported and how aged-care providers are monitored. They have a right to see how decisions are made in their name, as do the 27 million Australians that live in this great country. At its core, the Freedom of Information Act is a statement of principle, that the information held by government is the property of the people. That principle has served Australia well for more than 40 years. It has allowed journalists to expose the misuse of funds. It has empowered communities to question decisions. It has led academics and advocates to improve policy. It is not perfect, but it is vital. This bill threatens to turn that principle upside down. It says information belongs to government unless the public can pry it loose. That is not the spirit of a free nation. That is the spirit of bureaucracy, not democracy. This debate is not only about law; it is about culture. It is about the kind of government we want to be and the kind of relationship we want with the people we serve. I have the highest respect for our public servants. The overwhelming majority act with integrity, professionalism and pride, but the best way to protect that integrity is not to hide their work; it is to uphold it. Public servants deserve laws that reflect their commitment to the public good. They do not need laws that allow ministers to bury advice when it becomes politically inconvenient. When the Leader of the Opposition wrote that 'transparency is not a burden on government but a duty of government', she captured the essence of this debate. She reminded us that good government is not about avoiding discomfort but about being accountable for the decisions we make in the public's name. That is the standard Australians expect from their representatives and their institutions. Secrecy may feel safe for those in power, but it corrodes confidence from the ground up. It tells citizens that government belongs to a class apart, not to the nation as a whole. It says to the nurse in Birtinya, the teacher in Palmwoods and the small-business owner in Caloundra that decisions are made behind closed doors and that their right to question those decisions is conditional. That is how trust dies—not in one dramatic moment but in small acts of concealment, justified as efficiency or modernisation. A government that hides information is a government that forgets who it serves. The FOI system was built on a presumption of disclosure. This bill replaces that with a presumption of control. It rewrites the social contract between government and the governed. That is not reform; it is cowardice. Let me outline, instead, what genuine reform could look like. First, restore the original object of the act. Transparency must remain the primary goal. Administrative efficiency can be achieved without making secrecy a competing purpose. Second, protect anonymity. Replace the ban with simple technology that filters bots and bulk spam requests while preserving the safety of individuals who act in the public interest. Third, abandon the 40-hour cap and replace it with a duty to assist. Require agencies to help applicants narrow scope. Release material in stages, if need be, and prioritise public interest requests. Fourth, narrow the cabinet expansion. Limit the exemption to genuine cabinet submissions, decisions and minutes. Exclude factual material and prohibit blanket claims over documents that only mention cabinet. Fifth, delete the power to refuse without search. If a document is truly exempt, let that be shown through proper process. Refusal by assumption undermines both transparency and accountability. Sixth, cap or waive fees for public interest applicants. Journalists, charities, academics and community groups should not be priced out of participation in their own democracy. Finally, fund the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner properly. Delays are not caused by the public asking questions; they are caused by a system without the resources to answer them. These are practical, fair and balanced reforms. They preserve genuine confidentiality where it is justified while strengthening the right of the public to know. This debate also goes to the heart of public integrity. In Fisher and across the Sunshine Coast—in fact, across the country—people expect government to deal straight with them. They expect honesty in words and transparency in action. They see the headlines about redacted reports, missing documents and endless delays—and they just shake their heads. They ask, 'Why can't the government just tell us the truth?' That question should shame any government that calls itself open and accountable. Transparency is not a partisan virtue; it belongs to every Australian who believes in fair play and honest government. Once secrecy becomes normal, its insidious nature is left to fester. It seeps into local councils, agencies and public corporations. It turns freedom of information into freedom from scrutiny. History shows that governments rarely surrender secrecy once they have tasted it. That is why this parliament must stop this now, before the habit becomes the culture. If this bill passes unamended, the next government will face pressure to reverse it. The crossbench and the Greens have already expressed deep concern. That should ring strong alarm bells on its own. Transparency should be the common ground of democracy, not a battleground of ideology. This is not about comfort for politicians; it's about confidence for citizens. If the people can't see, they can't judge. If they can't judge, they cannot trust. And when information is withheld, rumours rush to fill a void. Conspiracy replaces evidence. Distrust replaces participation. Freedom of information is the antidote to that cynicism. It says: 'Here are the facts. Decide for yourself.' Every time an agency releases a document, every time a journalist exposes misuse, every time a citizen finds an answer through FOI, democracy is strengthened. That is why this bill matters so deeply. It is not technical housekeeping; it is a test of whether this parliament still believes that information belongs to the people. This bill fails every test, and I ask the House to oppose this bill as it is drafted. Do not vote for longer delays. Do not vote for higher fees. Do not vote for wider exemptions. Don't vote for a truth tax on democracy. Vote instead for transparency, honesty, and confidence in the people we serve. Vote for accountability, the true test of leadership. Freedom of information is not a nuisance; it's a right. I call on all members of the House to reject this bill until it reflects the values of openness, accountability and respect for the people who sent us here. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 10

Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025

Second Reading 10 13:06 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper The passage of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 will be supported by the coalition. The development of this bill represents practical and necessary follow-up action to the signing earlier this year of what is generally known as the Geelong treaty. It also has a much longer and more formal name, which is the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Partnership and Collaboration Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But, whatever you prefer to call it, this arrangement represents a key element underpinning the trilateral AUKUS partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. It was signed in Geelong on 26 July 2025 by Australia's current defence minister, Richard Marles, and his UK counterpart, John Healey. In broad terms, this represents a shared commitment between our two nations to collaborate closely on the design, construction, operation, sustainment and regulation of nuclear powered submarines, the central capability under Pillar I of AUKUS. To be more specific, the bill gives domestic legal effect to article XXI of the treaty. That article provides that neither nation will impose customs duties, excise or similar charges on certain goods imported or exported in connection with the treaty. In practical terms, it means that, when eligible goods are imported into Australia or exported to the United Kingdom for use under the Geelong treaty, they can be traded freely without the burden of additional customs and excise costs. This bill achieves that by inserting item 58A into schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995, establishing a duty-free rate for qualifying goods used under the treaty; defining 'Geelong Treaty' within the Customs Tariff Act to provide legal clarity; and ensuring that the changes apply not only to future imports but also to any qualifying goods that have already been imported and are awaiting customs processing when the treaty enters into force. While this bill is short and technical in nature, it therefore performs important functions. It will help to ensure that Australia is ready legally and administratively to meet the conditions necessary for the Geelong treaty to enter into force. Under article XXXIII, point A of the treaty, each party must complete various domestic processes before the treaty can commence. Passing this bill is part of that activity. It is in essence an enabling measure, modest in scope but important in effect. If implemented successfully, the changes to which it has given expression will facilitate some of the economic and industrial cooperation that will be needed to practically support AUKUS, not least by removing obstacles and lowering costs for companies and government agencies working to deliver this generation-defining capability. The language of the bill is deliberately narrow, and that's a good thing. The new concessional arrangements will apply only to goods for use under the Geelong treaty. That means they cannot be exploited for unscrupulous importers and exporters seeking to trade in eligible goods or used as a backdoor for unrelated trade concessions. Instead, the scope of the qualifying goods is narrow, limited to defence related items approved under formal arrangements between our governments and their authorised contractors. This is a targeted and well-disciplined approach to implementing the treaty obligations, consistent with the spirit of the AUKUS framework. It is about fostering even closer cooperation between two longstanding allies on a vital agreement and not about flouting trade rules or creating any kind of new class of general trade preferences. Here at home, this legislation has also been endorsed by the majority findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which examined the Geelong treaty in detail. I should add that AUKUS is not simply about building, acquiring and deploying submarines. From the time that the former coalition government began the work and ultimately struck in 2021 the original AUKUS agreement with the other two key allies involved in this partnership, it has been about embedding Australia in a deep and enduring network of technological, industrial and strategic cooperation with our most trusted allies. Through AUKUS, the long-term vision is that it will also lead to pronounced growth in the workforce, supply chains and regulatory systems that will sustain our development of the new submarines. The Geelong treaty is one of the latest practical embodiments of that partnership, ensuring that our laws, our defence industries and our economic frameworks all align with the capabilities that we are building. The coalition has been steadfast in its support for AUKUS from the very beginning. In government, we conceived it and negotiated it, and now, from the opposition benches, we continue to back it. If implemented successfully, AUKUS will spur a once-in-a-generation transformation of Australia's strategic posture. It will strengthen our deterrence, enhance our industrial capability and cement our place within one of the world's most advanced defence partnerships. This bill represents the latest step in making that possible. It ensures that all Australian laws align with our international commitments, that our defence industry can operate efficiently with trusted partners and that the broader AUKUS framework continues to move closer to reality. This bill is not controversial. It imposes no new taxes, no new regulations and no new obligations on Australian businesses or households. It simply ensures that Australia can honour the important commitment it has made under the Geelong treaty. This is a treaty that advances our national interests, strengthens our alliance with the United Kingdom and more broadly with the United States and supports the delivery of a capability that will protect Australia for a number of decades to come. For each of these reasons, the coalition supports the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, and we commend the government for introducing it into the parliament. Debate adjourned. Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 11

Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025

Second Reading 11 13:14 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I rise to speak on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025. This bill seeks to modernise and streamline parts of the Commonwealth's regulatory framework. Some items are simply housekeeping. They tidy up outdated provisions, remove redundant laws and allow commonsense changes, like accepting secure digital identification or fixing minor compliance concerns. Other measures aim to make it easier for people to interact with government by improving data-sharing inside Services Australia, reducing duplication in health and pathology processes, and supporting a tell-us-once approach so Australians do not have to constantly re-prove who they are. On the surface, these all sound worthy. Some may well save time for households and small businesses. Some will clean up clutter that has been allowed to build for too long. I will not take the House through every single schedule. Instead, I'll set out the coalition's views on the package and then address two areas of contention. Where the bill makes it easier for Australians to deal with government, we are inclined to support it. A tell-us-once approach, which means Australians won't have to enter their details every single time they access a different government service, is common sense. Better use of health identifiers to avoid duplication looks like it will help patients and clinicians. Smarter information-sharing inside Services Australia looks to be good, especially and if privacy safeguards are upheld. On reading this bill, my initial thought was not in any way that a lot of the items were silly; the thing that got me was reading the detail of the bill and then reading the title again—the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill. The thing is: this isn't really reform. None of this is genuine, substantive red tape reduction. Rather, it is largely worthwhile housekeeping—things that simply should be done. The Treasurer says this bill follows on from his economic roundtable. Really? The government waited three years before then taking three months to organise a three-day economic roundtable. There's no doubt that regulatory reform was a big stated objective and also a big stated outcome from that roundtable. But then you read the details of this bill, the so-called Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill, and it is completely underwhelming. We welcomed at the time the economic roundtable; I myself attended. I did warn, though, that the 20-odd people behind closed doors in parliament would not turn the economy around. I saw myself there as representing the 27 million Australians who were not in the room, who were locked out. I take this bill as evidence that the coalition was right to be sceptical of that process. Don't get me wrong; there are some worthy measures in the bill. But the government cannot argue that it is seriously tackling, with this bill, Australia's problem of being overregulated. If you were to listen to the Treasurer you might think so, but, sadly, I think not. The latest national accounts published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics reflect the economic crisis under this government. The latest September data revealed what Australians already know: under the Albanese government, households are poorer and our economy is weaker. The June quarter figures show Australia's economy grew at its slowest pace outside the pandemic since the 1990s. Since Labor came to office, Australians have suffered the deepest fall in living standards in the developed world and remain stuck in a cost-of-living crisis. The Albanese government promised a private-sector-led recovery, yet business investment is stalled. While household spending lifted modestly in the June quarter, helped by the holiday period and end-of-year sales, it is no substitute for sustained private sector investment and productivity growth. At a household level, the Australian economy today is smaller than the one Labor inherited three years ago and productivity is down over five per cent. Just as Australia's inflation crisis, otherwise known to many as the 'Jimflation' effect, is destroying our national prosperity, so too is Labor's productivity crisis. Labor has become the 800-pound gorilla in the Australian economy, muscling out the private sector and weighing down our economic growth. Government spending is growing four times faster than the economy. Spending is at its highest level outside of recession in nearly 40 years, blowing government spending out from 24 to 27 per cent of GDP. In the last three years, Labor has added $100 billion to the national debt, which is set to hit $1 trillion this year and $1.2 trillion by the time of the next election. Until the government stops its spending spree, the private sector will continue to be squeezed, and productivity and living standards will continue to languish. To be clear, the coalition supports real regulatory reform because a competitive and productive Australia requires rules which are proportionate and efficient. Excessive regulation lifts costs for households and businesses, and I make the point that this government has indeed enhanced its regulatory regime. We have seen 5,000 new pieces of regulation added to the books under this government—quite an achievement. But, of course, the more that regulations are introduced, the more that they burden those actors within the economy. This government wears, as a badge of honour, the overregulation of the economy, but, unfortunately, it is leading to the poor economic outcomes that are shown every single time that the economic figures are released by the ABS. It will also no doubt be reflected in the RBA's decision later today. You see, when you have excessive regulation, it ultimately slows down investment and discourages innovation. Good regulation protects the public interest without trying to anchor the economy, without bringing it down and tying it down. That's what good regulation is all about. What Australia needs is less regulation and improved regulation. That's what good regulation is. A simpler and more predictable regulatory regime is what helps small and medium businesses to grow, to hire, to invest and, for many, to export. It also helps Australians who rely on government services. No-one should miss out on support, but, when you have a maze of forms and paperwork that get in the way, missing out is exactly the risk that arises. Again, that's why we on this side of the House continue to beat the drum for this government to tackle real regulatory reform, not just a list of household duties to only somewhat ease the way. Before I get into some of the details of the bill, I must first remark on the government's claim of its intent to create a more productive Australia, a worthy intent when you consider how dire the situation is under this government. Australia's competitiveness ranking has slipped. The government has already added over 5,000 new regulations, and there are more to come. Among the rats and mice of tidy-ups in this bill are a couple of more substantive items, and these happen to be ones about which we have some concerns. The first relates to fuel security. The bill proposes to allow the minister to reduce or suspend minimum stockholding obligations of petrol, diesel and jet fuel in limited circumstances. The draft clause did not set a maximum period for reduction, which risked undermining the intent of the regime. We raised this issue with the government. The government has now circulated an amendment to address our concern. We will support that amendment, and I thank the government for listening to our advice. Fuel security should not be a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan trophy. It is a national interest test, so we thank the government for correcting course in response to the practical feedback that came from the coalition. Secondly, I refer to the GEMS Act and demand response, which is an item forming part of this bill. The bill would change the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act to include promoting 'improved energy performance through better energy use and management of the demand placed on the energy system'. On the surface, this may sound harmless. But in practice, it shifts the act from product efficiency towards system control-and-demand response. That is a fundamental change in intent. There are some problems with this approach. The first area of concern is that it expands the scope from how much energy a product uses to how and when energy is used across the system. This is not what the act was designed to regulate. GEMS—that is, the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012—sets appliance standards. It does not set market behaviour, which is basically what this looks to be seeking to achieve. The second area of concern is that the key terms in this GEMS adjustment in the bill are not defined. Energy performance and management of demand are very broad statements and very broad ideas. Without clear boundaries, regulators could step from product standards into rules about how devices interact with the grid. That risks new compliance costs for households and businesses without a clear mandate from parliament. The third area of concern is that the explanatory memorandum does not explain what this change would require in practice. If the goal is to enable future demand management standards, the government should say so. It should bring forward a separate bill with clear definitions, proper consultation and a full assessment of costs and benefits. If there is a clear case for new powers, it must be made openly and it must be tested. Slipping a new object into GEMS through an omnibus is not the way to do it. Our position is straightforward: remove the GEMS object change from this bill and consider it separately. The coalition of course supports the practical steps reflected in the bill that will make life simpler and easier for the Australian people—especially those items of the bill that make it easier to deal with government and make it easier for businesses to invest, to grow and to generate more jobs. We support the ambition of a more productive economy. However, I am astounded that, from this government—having been returned to office with all of its talk about wanting to improve productivity, all of its talk about improving regulation, and all of its talk, after its economic roundtable, about embarking on a program of regulatory reform—this omnibus bill is all we have. This is it. It is quite extraordinary. This goes to the complete lack of ambition on the part of the government. To think that the Treasurer came back for the second term and made such a loud song-and-dance about wanting to reform regulation in this country, and all we have before us is a bill that does some housekeeping and some little tidy-ups. As worthy as some of those items are, it is a sad indictment of the lack of ambition of this government. It is why you still see business investment so low. It is why you continue to see a lagging growth in the Australian economy. It is why you continue to see Australia looked at by others in the world as a potential investment location—and then they shrug their shoulders, wondering why this country that was once ambitious is now in the slow lane. For this to be called the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill speaks to what this government has become. It's a government and an administration not just lacking ambition but lacking any thought leadership. It has effectively walked around the house, chosen those little things that need to be fixed up, and cobbled together, as worthy as some of those items are, an omnibus bill. This will give no inspiration to the private sector, to potential investors, to businesses or to households. Thank you very much. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43, and 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 13 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Mining 13 13:30 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn The Labor Party continues to turn their backs on hardworking men and women in the mining industry and resource sector in our regional communities. Last week we saw the leader of the Labor Party in Queensland, Steven Miles, spruiking how successful Queensland's coal royalty scheme is and how it should be adopted by other states. This is despite Queensland losing more than $2 billion of its share of GST, and right now regional businesses, families and communities are feeling the impact of the world's highest coal royalties, fewer contracts, more than a thousand job losses in Central Queensland, and less investment in our rural towns. There are a number of questions the federal Labor government needs to answer. Does the government support slogging mining companies with world-topping taxes, which have already contributed to the loss of more than a thousand crucial jobs in Central Queensland? Does it believe that the mining royalty tax, like the former Labor government in Queensland implemented, should be applied to all commodities mined in Australia? What impact would this have on GST payments in mining states? Labor continues to attack the industries and regional communities that pay the nation's bills by treating them as cash cows. Federal Labor needs to stand up and provide certainty to rule out further tax increases and ensure GST payments to the states. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 14 13:31 Ms WITTY 316660 Melbourne I rise to read a speech by a student in my electorate of Melbourne as part of Raise Our Voice Australia. I'm excited to be part of amplifying the voices of young people. Today I am reading a speech written by 19-year-old Arwa. They wrote: Australia has been my home for many years, a country that has offered me incredible opportunities and success. But despite these immense benefits, it's simply not enough. Australia is stalling. We lack critical progression in so many vital areas: from innovative ideas and committee wellness to health care, climate action, housing affordability, the cost-of-living crisis, and education. Beyond these critical issues, Australia is suffering from a fundamental breakdown in social cohesion. We're losing the societal framework where all people, regardless of race, colour, or religion work together. This division is evident everywhere, from the halls of parliament to the very streets of our cities. We have lost our vital sense of community. We must move forward as one country. It's imperative that we support those in our community who are less fortunate, ensuring everyone has the chance to experience the incredible potential Australia holds. But above all, we must remember that we are one massive community that must help each other in building the Australia we all envision. Well done Arwa, and thank you for your speech. Employment: Construction Industry 14 13:33 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright If we want to understand the depth of the Australian skills crisis, imagine trying to build a house, but before the first brick can be laid, before a single frame goes up, you need people. You need skilled people. You need builders, electricians, plumbers, tilers, carpenters, glaziers and roofers. According to the Housing Industry Association of Australia, we're short 83,000 construction tradies. But a house doesn't just sit on an island; it sits on a street. To reach that house, you first need to lay the road, along with the pipes, the power lines, the water and the telecommunications. The Civil Contractors Federation has reported on an ongoing shortage around 197,000 public infrastructure workers, and to design those roads and bridges, and to plan the delivery and infrastructure our nation relies on, you need engineers. By 2040 Australia is on track to be short 200 thousand engineers. From the ground up, from rubble to the skyline, the skill shortage is biting hard, and it's biting under Labor. When the coalition left office there were 428,000 apprentices and trainees across the country. Today, that number has plummeted by 107,000. Every shortage adds to cost and to delays, and puts the dream of homeownership further out of reach. It's time to rebuild our apprenticeship pipeline, back our tradies and give young Australians the chance to build our future—a future that they deserve. Medicare 14 13:34 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Last week I dropped into the Riverlink Medical & Dental Centre in Ipswich to celebrate the Albanese Labor government's massive expansion of bulk-billing. On 1 November our historic investment to strengthen Medicare kicked in, with bulk-billing incentives to GPs for every patient they bulk-bill and extra incentives for practices which bulk-bill every patient. This is the single biggest investment in Medicare in over 40 years and delivers on Labor's signature election commitment. Currently, around 83 per cent of GP services in Blair are bulk-billed, and at least nine clinics have said they will become fully bulk-billing clinics, thanks to our new incentives. Riverlink Medical & Dental Centre are one of these practices, and last year they saw nearly 87,000 people in my local area for health services. They're the home of the Medicare urgent care clinic as well, which has seen nearly 30,000 patients. The practice estimates that moving to 100 per cent bulk-billing will save our local community more than $238,000 every year. It was great to drop in with the local state MP, Wendy Bourne—the member for Ipswich West—to chat with patients and to thank the hardworking local staff there. We're making it easier to see a doctor and providing significant cost-of-living relief for locals. All you need is your Medicare card—not your credit card. Calare Electorate: Community Organisations 14 13:36 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Today I rise to recognise the outstanding work of the Central West Charity Tractor Trek Group. Every year, the Tractor Trek takes place, which sees vintage tractors and their drivers trekking around the Central West to raise money for worthy causes, including the charity Little Wings. This year's trek just concluded and was conducted over three days and 300 kilometres around Rylstone and its surrounding districts. Besides the Tractor Trek, the trekkers hold a 24-hour Central West 'tractorthon'—where tractors run for 24 hours around Canowindra Showground—which this year raised a further $20,000 on top of the $150,000 for worthy causes, including Little Wings. At the Canowindra tractorthon, some even do laps in mankinis, and, trust me, you cannot unsee that! I congratulate and thank all of our wonderful tractor trekkers, including the tractor trek committee: director Malcolm Porter, deputy director Nick Clancey, treasurer Debbie Porter and secretary Melanie Bone—and, indeed, all of the wonderful volunteers who get behind the Tractor Trek. The small but mighty charity Little Wings flies sick children and their families from country areas to the city for medical treatment. They fly in and out of the Central West on a daily basis. The federal government currently assists Little Wings with $500,000 per year, and this funding is due to expire in 2027. The organisation costs $6 million a year to run. As a funding expiration looms, it's clear that more funding is needed, and it needs to be made permanent. I call on the government to support country people and country communities— (Time expired) National Security 15 13:37 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong This Labor government has taken stronger action against Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps than any other government in Australian history. This is something that matters to the very large Iranian Australian community in Bennelong. Since coming to government, Labor has sanctioned 200 Iranian linked persons and entities. We've co-sponsored and campaigned for the UN Human Rights Council investigation into human rights violations in Iran. We're at the forefront of calling for Iran's removal from the UN Commission on the Status of Women, as part of the 'Women, Life, Freedom' people's campaign. That's because we recognise the threat that the IRGC poses to international and domestic security. Following advice from our security agencies, Labor will change the law so that we can list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. This is welcome and overdue. This comes after the horrendous actions of the IRGC in antisemitic attacks in Sydney and Melbourne, but it's also acting on calls from the Iranian Australian community in Bennelong and across the country, who have been calling for this action for a very long time. In the past and into the future, I'll always stand up for Australian values and be a voice for the Iranian Australian community in Bennelong. Listing the IRGC is a necessary step and will send the world a message that Australia stands against terror abroad and at home. Medicare 15 13:39 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Providing accessible health care is a critical role for government, and to that end I welcome the government's boost to the bulk-billing incentive. But recent claims that the boost has led to a 'surge' in bulk-billing GPs in Tasmania is, at best, overegged—at worst, downright dishonest. No wonder the RACGP tell me they're not anticipating anything like a surge in bulk-billing in the state, especially in the cities, where the rebates and extra incentives fall well short of what's needed. No wonder GPs themselves tell me the only way to make bulk-billing viable is to see more patients in less time, which is especially concerning for Tasmanians, given our ageing population, high levels of chronic disease and poor mental health. These are not consultations that can be sped up. My office took the government's advice to search the Healthdirect website for a bulk-billing doctor in the Hobart area and found just one non-urgent care clinic that accepts new patients. In other words, all this talk about only needing a Medicare card to see a doctor is just more political spin. Of course I welcome the government's focus on strengthening primary care, but I don't support its parsimonious approach. We're a rich country and can afford to do better. It's all about priorities. Early Childhood Education 15 13:40 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong In December the second instalment of Labor's historic 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators will land, with the final five per cent boost arriving just in time for Christmas. This is a proud moment for the Albanese Labor government and an even prouder moment for the thousands of educators, overwhelmingly women, who have given so much for their sector. We know that a properly paid and respected workforce is the foundation for safe, high-quality early education and care. When we value educators properly, with fair pay and secure work, we keep skilled, passionate professionals in the sector, and that stability means better outcomes for children and families right across Australia. I want to pay tribute to the incredible delegates and members of the United Workers Union, who have fought hard for this. They stood up, organised and never gave up, because they believe in the work they do, which deserves respect and recognition. This win belongs to them. In recent months I've had the privilege of visiting Goodstart Early Learning centres in Moonee Ponds and Brunswick West. I've seen firsthand the dedication of educators helping children to learn and grow and build confidence every day. These are the people shaping our next generation. They deserve a government on their side, and that's exactly what they have. Through Labor's reforms, including our landmark three-day guarantee, we're making early childhood education and care more affordable, accessible and fair. When we invest in our educators, we invest in our children, our families and our future. Bureau of Meteorology 16 13:42 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden I rise to speak on behalf of my community in relation to the concerns they've had about the botched BOM interface update that has been undertaken by this government. To all Queenslanders out there: we understand the importance of this service to you, particularly those of you in regional and rural parts of Queensland. I have taken the opportunity to write to the minister to express our community's concerns, because this has genuine impacts on our local community. I'm very pleased to have received some correspondence from interested local residents. One resident, Louise, has been a business analyst for 15 years, working mostly on large IT projects in state and federal government. Amongst other things, she has quite reasonably asked that taxpayers be given an explanation as to what has happened with the project: 'There needs to be lessons learnt, captured and acknowledged to avoid more of the same in the future.' Another resident, Mark, says: 'I don't know exactly why the BOM changed the radar, but it is for the worse. It doesn't zoom as much, and it is worse for boaties, as it doesn't have any observations. Pressure needs to be put on them to change it back or make it better, not worse.' It's a pretty fair request, and one which has also been made by the Premier of Queensland, David Crisafulli. He says: 'We want a website that people can understand. For $4.1 million, you wouldn't think that would be too much to ask.' (Time expired) World Teachers' Day 16 13:43 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Recently we had the pleasure of celebrating World Teachers' Day. It reminds us that teachers do more than deliver lessons; they inspire curiosity, build confidence and help young people find their place in the world. When I asked constituents in my electorate about teachers that had the biggest impact on them, Georgia had this to say: I had the most wonderful music teacher, Mrs Morrison from Angle Vale Primary School. She helped me write and perform a political protest song when I was just 7 years old! Teachers like Mrs Morrison create lifelong memories for their students. Whether they're teaching the alphabet, songs or extension mathematics, their impact remains the same. They nurture potential, open doors to opportunity and equip students with skills and values needed for life beyond the classroom. In every community, from city schools to small regional classrooms, there are teachers like Mrs Morrison. They are at the heart of progress and inclusion in and out of the classroom. World Teachers' Day is a day to reflect on the impact of great teaching and the teachers who have changed lives, encouraged ambition and sparked ideas and to reaffirm that education is one of the strongest forces for good in our world. To all teachers out there, I say thank you for your tireless work and patience in preparing the next generation of Australians for the future. Parkes Electorate: Awards and Honours 16 13:45 Mr CHAFFEY 316312 Parkes I rise to congratulate someone who really is worthy of recognition. Last week, Carol Mudford of Dubbo was named as the winner of the AgriFutures Australia Rural Women's Award. This is such a worthy award that recognises the incredible things that regional women are achieving, and no-one is more deserving than Carol. Carol, like so many regional women, has many diverse skills. Carol is both a registered nurse and an accomplished shearer. Carol was so moved by the suicide of three shearers that she wanted to do something to help people in the shearing industry. Carol started sHedway, an organisation that tackles suicide prevention and mental health support in shearing sheds right across the country. Congratulations to Carol, to the runner-up Isabella Thrupp and also to the state finalists and the nominees. It is this time of year when organisations are recognising their outstanding businesses at business awards. On Saturday, Regional Development Australia announced the winners of the Far West New South Wales Excellence in Business Awards, and congratulations go to the overall winner, Broken Hill Distillery, a business that offers distillery tours and produces award-winning gin. Congratulations also go to all of the other winners and nominees. The Gunnedah and District Chamber of Commerce and Industry has also been recognised at a state level, winning the outstanding local chamber at the recent New South Wales Business Awards. As a former president of this chamber of commerce, I have— (Time expired) Climate Change 16 13:46 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston On this side of the House, we know that taking strong action on climate change isn't just about protecting our environment; it's about securing our future and strengthening our economy. The science is clear: the climate is changing because of global emissions, and Australia is already feeling the effects. Droughts, bushfires and floods are events that are no longer warnings of the future but instead the reality of today. By reducing emissions now, we can limit the worst impacts of climate change while creating new industries, new technologies and good, secure jobs across the nation. Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has legislated our commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 and set an ambitious target to cut emissions by 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035. This is the next crucial step on our path to a cleaner, stronger economy. Our net zero plan outlines how we'll achieve a fair, orderly and efficient transition, a transition that grows the economy, reduces costs for households and businesses and ensures no Australian is left behind. Yet, while on this side of the House we are guided by science and ambition, those opposite are guided by denial and delay. Consumed by infighting and division, they offer Australians no credible path forward—just a net zero alternative to the leadership of this country. Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce 17 13:48 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom On Saturday evening, I was very proud to be able to attend the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards, a great event sponsored by Little Pig Consulting. There were some wonderful awards all through the evening. There are a couple I want to mention because they are very special to our community. The Business of the Year went to E&E Waste, a great organisation who has built up over a long period of time. The Innovation and Technology winner was TUFF Australia, and there were so many people happy to see Anton and Ally take home that award. But my favourite, of course, was the Hall of Fame, which went to Fitzy's hotel. Lots of good things happen at Fitzy's hotel in Toowoomba. Everyone's got a great story, and I'm sure that in just a couple of minutes it will be filled with people getting very excited about the cup. As good as that award session is, it's important to point out that Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce does a great job advocating for businesses in our region. They've got a great philosophy that, if we work together, we get better outcomes. I want to take a moment to thank President Myf Rigby for all she's done, and the two vice presidents, Sam Wright and Barton Castley. I think that by continuing to work together we're going to get better outcomes for our region. Clearly, as was the conversation throughout the evening, the economy is getting tight. We are seeing changes in the economy. We're seeing different businesses struggle—some adapting, some not so well. But together we can work through those processes, and I think it's really important that the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce continue to raise the voice of Toowoomba businesses. Prime Minister's Prizes for Science 17 13:49 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I rise to recognise two outstanding Canberrans. Dr Vikram Sharma received the 2025 Prime Minister's Prize for Innovation. Dr Sharma is the founder and chief executive officer of Quintessence Labs. The prize recognises his work turning deep quantum science research into world-leading cybersecurity solutions used by companies around the world to protect sensitive information. Customers include Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, global defence contractors and critical infrastructure providers. The company employs world-leading quantum scientists, electronic specialists and software engineers, and plans to grow to around 150 people within the next two years. Mrs Paula Taylor received the 2025 Prime Minister's Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools. Mrs Taylor creates innovative programs that ignite curiosity and build confidence in students of all abilities, making STEM education accessible for thousands of students. Mrs Taylor is passionate about supporting teachers to be exceptional STEM educators and has worked with more than 10,000 students and 480 classroom teachers in her time. Thank you, Vikram and Paula, for your exceptional and inspiring contributions. The Albanese government stands with you in investing in the science of today and tomorrow. Albanese Government: Rural and Regional Australia 17 13:51 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I want to talk about the difference between fantasy and reality. On election night the Prime Minister promised that he would govern for all Australians. He promised that no-one would be left behind. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has this on her website: The Australian Government is committed to investing in Australia's regions to create jobs, build opportunity and unlock economic growth and productivity. It's a fantasy! The reality is cuts to regional development programs. We've seen this minister for infrastructure and transport cut the Roads of Strategic Importance program, cut the Building Better Regions Fund, cut the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program and cut the Community Development Grants program. We see the difference between fantasy and reality. The fantasy is she says she's going to invest in regional communities and the reality is she's going to cut the programs. Actually, that's not entirely true. She hasn't just cut our programs; this minister is so good that she cut her own program! She created the Growing Regions program, and, after two years, cut that as well. What sort of minister can claim to represent regional areas when, after she has finished cutting coalition programs, she cuts her own program as well? All I can say is: be careful, Australia. Be careful when you're deciphering the comments of the Prime Minister and the infrastructure minister to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. The fantasy is: when this Prime Minister says no-one will be left behind, regional Australians know he's making it up. (Time expired) Prime Minister's Prizes for Science 18 13:52 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt Last night, the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science awards were held in the great hall of Parliament House. Professor Yao Zheng, a resident of my electorate of Sturt and a professor at the University of Adelaide, won the Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year for his work in creating a method to generate ultra-pure hydrogen directly from untreated seawater via electrolysis. In his acceptance speech, Professor Zheng noted both the beauty and abundance of two of Australia's greatest natural resources—sunlight and seawater—and, in doing so, asked, 'If our natural resources are abundant and available, then why not harness their power for the purposes of green energy?' The groundbreaking research and work carried out by Professor Zheng and his team has eliminated the need for costly de-ionised water. Professor Zheng's innovative technology offers a practical solution for clean energy production in parallel with reducing freshwater consumption, which is particularly vital for a water-scarce region like Australia. His high-performance electrocatalysts enable efficient and robust hydrogen generation. He achieved this by uniting chemical reaction kinetics with materials chemistry. Professor Zheng is an example of what can happen when we listen to and rely on the science. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Professor Zheng. Economy 18 13:54 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Why is it that everyday Australians are expected to pay for this government's policy backflips and failures? After realising that you can't tax imaginary money in unrealised capital gains, the Treasurer's 'new and improved' super tax 2.0 is reportedly going to be even more complicated and will add costs onto super funds that will be passed on to every single member, not just those with large balances—well, for those who still have balances, anyway, unlike the 12,000 Aussies who lost their life savings after this government ignored ASIC warnings. Then there's the failed $9 trillion net zero policy, driving up the price of not just your monthly energy bills but every single product on our supermarket shelves. Australians deserve a cheaper, better, fairer energy policy, but instead our homegrown industries are being driven offshore and inflation rates are being pushed above the threshold that would finally trigger some relief for mortgage holders. Speaking of mortgage holders, how's your five per cent deposit scheme working out? Rather than going full throttle on the real issue of housing supply, Labor has introduced a bandaid inflationary policy that, within its first month, has added $10,000 to the national house price. As the saying goes, you always pay more under Labor. Khoury, Dr David 18 13:55 Mr SOON 298618 Banks I rise to celebrate the achievements of Dr David Khoury, a Peakhurst Heights local from my electorate of Banks, who's right up there in the gallery today. This week, Dr Khoury was awarded the Frank Fenner Prize for Life Scientist of the Year as part of the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science—a remarkable accomplishment. Dr Khoury is a Scientia fellow and the leader of the Infection Analytics Program at the University of New South Wales's Kirby Institute. He has been recognised for his work bringing his advanced mathematics background to public health research, with his use of quantitative methods to translate scientific research into actionable evidence to guide public health decisions, especially those related to drug and vaccine development, assessment and deployment. Dr Khoury can be proud that his work has informed the decisions to protect some of the most vulnerable populations and contributed to saving thousands of lives around the world. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr Khoury this morning and hearing about his story and his research. Dr Khoury is a great local in Banks and an extraordinary Australian. I look forward to seeing what he can accomplish in the future. Congratulations, Dr Khoury, to you, your team and your family for a remarkable achievement. And to the young people of Banks: Dr Khoury is a great example of how a career in science can change the world. Melbourne Cup 18 13:57 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Drama before the start of the 2025 Melbourne Cup of politics! The anti-fun teals and the Greens are refusing to enter the barriers! Their jockeys are carrying anti-racing placards. Who would believe that? The gates crash back and the race is on! Canning has gone hard and fast, early—maybe a bit 'hasty'? Ballarat and Hotham are building expectations but nothing else. McMahon is charging, more and more! All wind, no power! Blowing hard, but no energy, his chances of winning are net zero! Why are New England, Riverina and Chifley so far back? Word is New England may soon be changing stables! Maranoa is safe for now, surrounding himself with stablemates. Farrer is trying hard—so, too, Fairfax. Leadership aspirants are looming, thick and fast! Canning is still in the picture, and Hume thereabouts. Goldstein and Hindmarsh fancy themselves! Lawler, Casey and Capricornia are cracking the whip! Come on! Cheer them home! Grayndler has a huge lead! Greenway is laying down the law now! Corio is steady—on the wrong course, though; thought it was a golf course. Rankin wants to be leader! Little chance! Birthday Boy Watson wants to be in front. No hope! Senator Thorpe is burning down the outside! Question Time is fast approaching, and here comes the Speaker! Everyone's favourite! Can he make it back-to-back? Speaker! Question Time! Speaker! The place is on fire! Photo finish! Speaker! Medicare 19 13:59 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Since Labor's bulk-billing changes kicked in on 1 November, we're seeing a real shift across the Hunter: more GPs, clinics signing up to bulk-bill, more doctors coming to the region and people finally finding it easy to see a doctor. That's exactly what Medicare was meant to do: give every Aussie access to care without having to worry about the cost. This government has increased the number of GPs. We've increased bulk-billing payments. We've increased the number of surgeries that are bulk billing. In fact, the only thing that this side has cut is my beard. Labor's tripling of the bulk-billing incentive is the biggest investment in Medicare history, and it's paying off. Families, pensioners and kids right across the Hunter are better off. The Liberals froze Medicare and drove doctors away from bulk-billing. They made it harder to see a GP and pushed costs through the roof. They called it responsible budgeting. What that really was was a direct attack on Medicare and a direct attack on the people of the Hunter. But we're fixing it; we're rebuilding Medicare. We're backing local doctors and we're cutting waiting times. We're making sure no-one in the Hunter is left behind and making sure they don't have to choose between their wallet and their health. Only an Albanese Labor government cares about the people of the Hunter, cares about Medicare and cares about Australia. Back us in. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 19 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Prime Minister's Prizes for Science 19 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler We're joined today in the gallery by winners of the Prime Minister's science awards, held in the Great Hall last night. It was a wonderful event. I congratulate Distinguished Professor Lidia Morawska of the Queensland University of Technology, who won the Prime Minister's Prize for Science for her study of air quality, which provided vital insights in the fight against the spread of COVID-19 and redefined our understanding of air quality. The Prime Minister's Prize for Innovation was won by Dr Vikram Sharma. The inaugural Prime Minister's Prize for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Knowledge Systems was particularly well received yesterday evening by Professor Michael Wear from Western Australia. The Prime Minister's Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools was won by Mrs Paula Taylor and in Secondary Schools by Mr Matt Dodds for his creative teaching methods. His speech was particularly well received. The Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year was won by Professor Yao Zheng, the Frank Fenner Prize for Life Scientist of the Year by Dr David Khoury and the Prize for New Innovators by Dr Nikhilesh Bappoo. On behalf of the government and also on behalf of all Australians, I want to congratulate the incredible winners of the prizes for science. Every researcher, scientist, innovator and teacher there has made a truly remarkable contribution to Australian science. It was very uplifting to be in a room with a group of Australians who have devoted their lives to curiosity, to discovery and to the teaching of science not only for the benefit of all Australians but also for the benefit of future generations. Across the spectrum, it was a wonderful evening, and I congratulate all the winners. It's important that, as a nation, we don't just celebrate our sporting achievements, which often get a big rap, but also acknowledge that Australia punches way above its weight with Nobel laureates and in other areas of innovation in science as well. Last night was a chance to celebrate that. 14:03 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Each year the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science do, indeed, remind us that Australia punches well above its weight in scientific excellence, innovation and discovery. Started in 2000 under then prime minister John Howard, these awards recognise achievements in innovation, science teaching and scientific research. The awards were part of a broader push to elevate Australia's reputation in science and technology and to honour those whose work in science and innovation has had a profound impact on our nation and on the world. This year's top honour, the Prime Minister's Prize for Science, was awarded to Distinguished Professor Lidia Morawska for her groundbreaking research into airborne transmission, which has transformed worldwide infection control practices. Her work, quite literally, changed public health policies across the globe and continues to change lives today. In recognition of his important work to help grow Australia's next generation of scientists and innovators, Mr Matt Dodds, from Glen Innes High School, was awarded the Prime Minister's Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Secondary Schools. Mr Dodds was recognised for his creative teaching methods to equip students from rural areas and diverse backgrounds with STEM knowledge and skills. It's always a great opportunity to thank our teachers, particularly when they are inspirational in this field. Importantly, these innovative methods have helped increase the number of female students studying physics at his school and pursuing higher education in STEM. I also congratulate all nominees and award winners and thank them for the valuable contribution they are making. Together, these winners reflect the best of Australia's ingenuity through their scientific brilliance, entrepreneurial courage and commitment to sharing knowledge with the next generation. The Prime Minister's Prizes for Science remind us that when we invest in curiosity, creativity and collaboration we built a smarter, stronger and more resilient Australia. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Labor Government 20 14:05 Mr REBELLO 316547 McPherson My question is to the Prime Minister. According to the ABS, there are now 34,000 more unemployed Australians than a month ago; inflation is soaring above the RBA's target band, leading to concerns about stagflation; and every month the average household is paying $1,800 more on their mortgage under this Labor government. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he promised, 'No-one will be left behind'? 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question, but it was an interesting use of statistics there. I was waiting for him to mention the fact that 1.1 million jobs have been created under this government. I was waiting for him—and I forgive him because he wasn't here, of course. If he was here in May 2022, he would have known that inflation had a six in front of it. It was double what it is now. He would have known also that interest rates started to increase under the former government and that there have been, in fact, three reductions in interest rates this year under this government. He would have known, when it comes to fiscal policy, that they sat there, promised a budget surplus in their first year, when they were elected in 2013, and every year thereafter and, in fact, delivered zero when it comes to surpluses. But this treasurer delivered not one but two budget surpluses, the first consecutive budget surpluses in 20 years. He would also know, when it comes to the cost of living, that this government has progressed a range of changes, from cheaper medicines to the rolling out of urgent care clinics and the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive to lower health costs. He would know the difference that we've made in paid parental leave and in the superannuation guarantee. They've made a difference. He would know that the minimum wage has increased each and every year under this government—something that is the direct result of the deliberations of the Fair Work Commission but with the advantage of having submissions from a government that supports, not opposes, real-wage increases. The former government had low wage growth as a key feature of their economic architecture. He would know that as well. So the member is forgiven in his first term. I congratulate him on his election, for being here. Mr Tim Wilson IMW Patronising! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Goldstein is warned. Do not interject with that kind of interjection. Mr ALBANESE R36 From a bloke who spoke about the Wilson government online, you know—talk about fantasies! I think you're safe there, Leader of the Opposition. I don't know about the others behind you, but I reckon you're pretty safe from this bloke. Energy 20 14:08 Mr HOLZBERGER 88411 Forde My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government helping deliver cheaper, reliable energy for Australians? Are there any risks to our energy security? 14:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Forde for his question, and I recongratulate him on his election as well. When we came to government, we inherited a debacle of a situation when it comes to energy. It was put very well by Mr Coorey of the Australian Financial Review—always worth reading, Mr Speaker. He said this: … in reality, the climate wars of the past two decades, caused primarily by recalcitrance from the conservatives, is the reason why the energy grid today is such a dysfunctional and costly mess as it tries to play catch up. I couldn't have put it better myself. But, when we came to government—what Mr Coorey is referring to is the fact that 24 out of 28 ageing coal-fired power stations announced they were closing within the decade. Eight had already closed, including Hazelwood, because they were old and at the end of their lives. That all happened on the coalition's watch. Then they put $3 million into a feasibility study for Collinsville—do you remember that?—with zero chance of it ever progressing. Of course, it didn't progress under them. They did nothing about it. They had no plan whatsoever for our long-term energy security. Since the election, they've ripped themselves apart over energy policy. They haven't been fighting about this for six months; they've been fighting about it for two decades. That is 20 years with 23 different failed energy policies and three prime ministers torn down over the issue. We, on this side of the House, have one energy policy, and we are delivering it. It's providing certainty. This is how it's going: the head of the Australian Industry Group, responsible for manufacturing, was asked, 'Does Australia need another debate about net zero?' This is what Innes Willox had to say: Oh, God, no. No. Anything but, please. We've been there before many times over the past 20 years or so … for many in business, there will be a lot of … eye rolling about this simply because business had hoped that the broad fundamentals were settled. And that is what is so important. The Business Council of Australia's Bran Black— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Lyne, the member for Forrest and the member for O'Connor, all three of you are now warned. Enough of the interjections. You've just been going non-stop. Have some control, listen to what the Prime Minister is saying, show respect, and the parliament will be a lot better for it. Mr ALBANESE R36 They're actually sledging the Business Council of Australia. That is where the modern Liberal Party have got. That's where the modern Liberal Party have got. He said: We're very much committed to net zero, we have been for some time. Indeed they have. The business community wants investment certainty. That is what we're delivering. (Time expired) Cost of Living 21 14:12 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised Australians—I quote—'real, permanent, meaningful help with the cost of living'. However, in my home state of New South Wales, more than four in 10 people are concerned about going without food. More than a third have skipped meals to cover the essentials. More than one in three will need financial assistance in the lead-up to Christmas. In only three short years, this promise is neither real, permanent or meaningful. When will the government address the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families? 14:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Cook for his question. Indeed, I think the member for Cook has made some outstanding contributions from time to time. I'll quote him. When working at McKinsey, he was the co-author of an article titled 'Carbon light: How Australia can power ahead in a net-zero world'. Honourable members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 You haven't even heard the quote yet! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will just pause. Order! Members on my right and the member for Nicholls will cease interjecting. The member for Isaacs—I want to hear from the manager on a point of order. Mr Hawke HWO Just on the point of relevance—we don't need any more time to know the Prime Minister wants to answer what he wants to answer, but this is not the topic of the question at all. You can tell already he is off topic. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for—I'll hear from the Leader of the House first before I deal with anyone else. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, the question's really broad. It goes to anything that's related to the cost of living, and the Prime Minister is being relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I think everyone can agree it wasn't a specific question about a figure, a number or a yes or no. I think we can all agree on that. There was quite a lot in that. I think if someone asks the question and the Prime Minister is referring to that member directly—he's done that, and he's entitled to do that. So we're just going to make sure he's being directly relevant to the topics he was asked about—about cost of living and about a number of other points, particularly on the economy, that he was asked about, including in the lead-up to Christmas. The question was about when Australians will get the support they need. That's a pretty broad question. I think everyone can agree with the nature of the question. So I'm just going to make sure the Prime Minister's being directly relevant, and he'll continue. Mr ALBANESE R36 They'll get the support they need from this government because that's what we do each and every day. Indeed, the member for Cook—who went on to back in the policy that was established by the former member for Cook, when they established the net zero target under the former Morrison government—had this to say: … McKinsey analysis estimates these opportunities would add about AU $75 billion to the Australian economy each year through to 2035, as well as an additional 130,000 direct jobs over the period. I reckon that would help them out—130,000 direct jobs. He went on to say: Australia is facing a global economic transition that it cannot stop. Fortunately, the "lucky country" can make its own luck. Blessed with natural endowments, it can ensure a just transition with abundant economic and employment opportunities in the same regions that will be affected by the inevitable decline in fossil fuel exports. Well, there it is. Mr Kennedy 267506 I'll debate you on energy any time. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Cook has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm asked also about living standards and about prices going down. Let me just give a few facts. On 1 January, the price of medicine goes down to $25, the lowest it has been since 2004. I reckon that'll help people. For pensioners and concession card holders, the price of medicines is frozen at $7.70 for the rest of the decade. I reckon that helps people. For the 108,000 families and small businesses who've installed a cheaper battery, the price of installing solar is down and their energy bills are down permanently. I reckon that helps people. I'll tell you something else that helps people: the tax cuts for all 14 million Australian taxpayers that we implemented, which were opposed by those opposite. The member for Cook went to an election saying that not only had he voted against it but they'd introduce legislation into this chamber to increase income taxes for every single Australian taxpayer. The fact is that we are focused on cost of living. Those opposite are just focused on each other. Energy 22 14:18 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians take advantage of reliable renewable energy? What policies would deliver less reliable forms of electricity? Why is certainty so important? 14:18 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend for the question and thank her for everything she does representing her community so well. I'm pleased to inform the House that 110,022 Australian households have now taken up the Albanese government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program, up around 2,000 since yesterday—Australians getting on with the job of reducing their emissions and their bills. But, of course, we know that there's much more to do, and that's why today the Albanese government has announced our latest reforms to energy pricing in Australia, particularly the introduction of Solar Sharer, which will see a compulsion on energy companies to deliver an option for their consumers in default market offer states of having a free power period in the middle of the day. We can do this because 4.2 million Australian houses have rooftop solar, which means there's plenty of cheap and often negative-price power in the system during the day, and that has not been passed on to consumers as much as we would like. So we will require energy companies to offer this. Think about the opportunities for someone working from home, for example. People working from home will always have the support of this side of the House. Those people will be able to shift their energy use, in some instances, to the middle of the day and know it is for free with no charge coming. Or think about a retired couple, a pensioner couple, living at home who can know that, between maybe 12 and three, their energy will be free. Or think about someone with an app that can control their power. They can schedule their dishwasher or washing machine to operate free of charge in the middle of the day. These are important, meaningful reforms that put Australians more in charge and deliver cost-of-living relief. That's what real reform looks like—important reforms to ensure that consumers are put first. The member asked me what threats there would be and what an unreliable source of energy would be. We know, of course, that the most unreliable source of energy in the Australian grid at the moment is coal fired power, with coal-fired power stations breaking down all the time. We've had some revelations from those opposite in recent days—not only about net zero but about the National Party announcing that they support building new coal-fired power stations. The leader of the Nats said that one of the ways we can reduce emissions is to build new coal-fired power stations. Mr BOWEN DZS The leader of the Nats says that was Page. Well, he did refer to the Page report, which was the National Party report that he called 'crucial'. To justify this, the Page report says: Independent modelling by Arche Energy found that an ultra-supercritical coal plant could supply electricity … Now, when I look at this independent modelling, what does it say? The report by Arche Energy says: This report is written solely for the benefit of Coal Australia. That's what the independent modelling is—solely for the benefit of Coal Australia—and they assume a coal price of $40 to $60 when actually the coal price is over $100. I might assume I'll look like George Clooney next year, but it doesn't mean it's going to happen. You can't just assume your way to cheaper energy prices; you need to deliver policies for it. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 23 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 23 14:21 The SPEAKER 53517 I welcome a few people to the parliament today. First of all, I welcome Mr Dheran Young, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the Northern Territory; and Jacinta Ermacora, state member for Western Victoria, as guests of the Deputy Prime Minister. Also in the gallery today are alumni and participants of the Pathway to Politics for Women program, hosted by the member for Reid. On behalf of all members, good luck in your careers and welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Environment 23 14:22 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. Regional Australia is key to the success of the energy transition, and we know that 70 per cent of regional Australians are in broad support. However, poor community consultation is eroding social licence. The EPBC bills do not include a community consultation standard that would build trust. Will the minister commit to best practice community engagement standards under the new EPBC Act? 14:22 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Indi both for raising the legislation and for following what has been a theme for the member for Indi in her entire time in this place, which is community consultation and involving the community in decision-making. The environment legislation that's before the chamber is aimed quite squarely at being able to deliver better outcomes for the environment and also a faster decision-making process. As part of that, as people know, it's based closely on the Samuel report. The Samuel report noted that the act, as it's currently portrayed, doesn't have clear standards or clear benchmarks. One of the areas that Graeme Samuel referred to in terms of where these benchmarks and standards could be established is with respect to community consultation. It's raised directly there. We've said that soon we'll be making draft standards available for matters of national environmental significance and for offsets as well as the First Nations engagement standard. Data and compliance would come next. None of these standards actually have force until they have legislation to bounce off and to launch from. The Samuel review recommended other standards, including a community consultation standard. I know the minister is looking into it, and my understanding is that the minister has spoken directly to the member for Indi about community consultation standards as well. But, as I say, to be clear, we can't actually make any standards until the bill has become law. This is where we have had a long time with the Samuel report not becoming law. For a long time, since this bill was commissioned in 2019 and handed to the then environment minister, now the opposition leader, in 2020, we have had five years where the recommendations have been there for a better outcome—where the recommendations have been made for outcomes that would deliver a better outcome for the environment and a better outcome for business—and we have not had the situation where the legislation has been before the parliament, to make its way through the parliament. Right now it's before us, and we have an opportunity now to put the legislation through, which would, among different things, provide the opportunity for the exact sorts of standards that the member for Indi is putting in place. I just hope, as all members on this side hope, that the parliament takes the opportunity to finally follow through on recommendations that have been waiting too long. During that time, the environment has suffered; business has suffered. It's time to get this done. Energy 24 14:25 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the Treasurer. Why is reliable energy so important to Australia's economy, and how does that compare to other approaches? 14:25 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Jagajaga for the question, but also for the really important work that she does with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in our team. The member for Jagajaga understands, even if those opposite do not, that the transition to cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy is a golden economic opportunity for our country and for its people. That's because, as the ageing coal-fired power stations become less reliable and as they come out of the system, it's those two influences which are pushing up prices, and that's why an orderly transition, and considered investment in cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy, is so important to our economy. When we released our 2035 targets, we put out the detailed Treasury modelling at the same time, and the conclusions of that Treasury modelling were really clear. The conclusions were that clear and credible climate action will lead to more jobs, higher wages and better living standards. An orderly transition will give businesses the clarity and certainty they need to seize the opportunity and invest in Australia with confidence. It also concluded that a disorderly transition would mean fewer jobs, less investment, lower wages, lower living standards and higher power prices, in a smaller economy. What the Treasury also concluded, when they released these three scenarios, is that the only thing worse than a disorderly transition would be to abandon net zero entirely, which is what those opposite are proposing to do. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The member for Page has the MPI today. I do not want another word out of him; otherwise, we will not have the matter of public importance. I mean it. If you want a matter of public importance, it's simple: don't interject anymore, because I'll be left with no other choice. So everyone's crystal clear about what's going to happen? Great. The Treasurer has the call. Dr CHALMERS 37998 What those opposite are contemplating represents economic insanity, pure and simple. If you look at the document that the Treasury put out with the modelling, they made the following points clear—and I'm quoting the Treasury: 'The economic costs to Australia of not pursuing net zero would be significant and consequential. Not pursuing net zero by 2050 risks lower economic growth, reduced investment, missed export and employment opportunities, and higher electricity prices. These outcomes would flow from several channels, including heightened policy uncertainty, increased borrowing costs on global markets, and the loss of potential new export markets.' These are important points. Theirs is a recipe for higher energy prices, lower wages, less investment, less reliable energy and fewer jobs in our economy, but we know, as the Prime Minister said, they are not really focused on the jobs of the Australian people; they're only focused on their own jobs. They are absolutely tearing themselves apart over net zero. They are divided. They are divisive. They are delusional. And that's why they're in disarray. When it comes to this most important economic transformation, this side of the House will continue to work through the issues in a considered and methodical way, because our objective is to make the most of this crucial economic transition in our economy so that our people benefit. Economy 24 14:29 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Treasurer. The Treasurer has overseen a litany of economic disasters but always blames someone else: higher energy prices—someone else's fault; the fastest fall in living standards in the developed world—someone else's fault; 12 interest rate rises—someone else's fault; unemployment's up—someone else's fault; on our way to a trillion dollars of debt—someone else's fault. Will the Treasurer take some responsibility for his economic mismanagement? 14:29 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin When there are good developments in the economy, I share the credit with the Australian people. And I, as Treasurer, and this government take responsibility for working through the challenges in our economy. Having taken responsibility for cleaning up the mess that was left to us by those opposite, I think it's time for those opposite to acknowledge as well and to take responsibility for the fact that they had inflation running twice as high as it is now, and they had huge deficits as far as the eye can see, and they racked up a trillion dollars in Liberal debt. They doubled the debt even before the pandemic. So we take responsibility for working through the difficult issues in our economy. We're getting real wages moving again. We've got inflation down to half of what we inherited. We delivered a couple of surpluses. We got the deficit in the third year down to a fifth of what we inherited from those opposite. We got the debt down by $188 billion, saving Australians $60 billion in debt interest compared with what those opposite left them. If you look right across the board, average unemployment under this Prime Minister is the lowest of any government in the last half a century, and there is the progress we've made together on inflation, and the fact that unemployment is 4½ per cent—historically low, and part of an average unemployment rate much lower than what was left to us by those opposite. We're under no illusions about the challenges in our economy. We take those challenges seriously, and inflation is one of them. But, more than acknowledging that people are still under pressure despite the progress we've made together, we're actually doing something about it. When Australians are under pressure, this building, this House of Representatives, has two choices: to do something about it in the most responsible way that we can—which has been the approach of this Albanese Labor government—or to oppose that cost-of-living help and to take the most irresponsible course of action, which is the course those opposite have adopted. So I finish by saying this: if those opposite really cared about the cost of living, they wouldn't have opposed our tax cuts. If those opposite really cared about electricity prices, they wouldn't have opposed our efforts to give people a bit of help with their electricity bills. If they really cared about the cost-of-living pressures in communities right around this country, they wouldn't have opposed our efforts to make medicines cheaper. I could go on. But I hope they get the point: there's a difference between hoping for cost-of-living pressures, which is their approach, and doing something about them, which is our approach. Economy 25 14:32 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the House on the Reserve Bank's decision on interest rates today? 14:32 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin As honourable members would be aware, today the independent Reserve Bank kept interest rates on hold at 3.6 per cent. I acknowledge that many Australians would have wanted to see more rate relief at this meeting, but this decision was widely anticipated by markets and widely expected by economists. It is the case that inflation is much lower than we inherited from those opposite, and that has given the Reserve Bank the confidence to cut interest rates three times already this year. Those three interest rate cuts reflect the very substantial progress we've made in our economy together. When we came to office, headline inflation was 6.1 per cent and rising; it's now around half of that. When we came to office, trimmed mean inflation was almost five per cent and rising; it's now been within the target band for three consecutive quarters, albeit at the top of the target band now. If you look around the world, inflation ticked up in September for every major advanced economy except the UK, where it was flat but much higher than it is here. Once again, as I did in the answer a moment ago, I acknowledge—we acknowledge—that, even with this progress we've made, Australians are still under pressure. Those three interest rate cuts are providing a bit of relief, but we know that many Australians would have preferred to see more relief delivered today. We've got inflation down, we've kept unemployment low, the economy has continued to grow, the private sector is recovering in welcome ways, we've got real wages growing and interest rates have fallen three times this year. But we always know that there is more work to do. If you have a look at the forecasts which were also released with the Reserve Bank's decision today, you will see that, when it comes to government spending, in the Reserve Bank's own forecasts they've actually downgraded the contribution made by public spending in our economy. I think that does torpedo some of this dishonesty that comes from those opposite about the role of government spending. I point that out, acknowledging the usual politics will be played by those opposite. But, if those opposite want to claim that budgets are the decisive factor in interest rate decisions, then they've got to explain those three interest rate cuts this year, including two interest rate cuts which came after the budget in March. We will continue to work through the issues in our economy, the challenges in our economy, in the most responsible, considered and methodical way. We've made a lot of progress together in our economy. We know there's more work to do, and we've acknowledged that throughout. Cost of Living 25 14:35 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Australians have just been denied a Christmas rate cut, because of Labor's reckless spending. Thirty-two per cent of households are going without food or skipping meals, and in some suburbs 90 per cent are struggling to pay their mortgage. Labor has just killed a Christmas rate cut. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he promised that life would be cheaper under him? 14:36 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Notwithstanding some of the rhetorical flourishes in that question, the fact of the matter is that this side of the House is the only side of the House—sometimes with support from the crossbenches, to be fair, some of the time. We have implemented a consistent policy of support of cost-of-living measures. And, when it comes to fiscal policy, of course, we are happy to compare our fiscal policy of two budget surpluses and lower deficits, of savings—$188 billion of reduction in debt as a result of government actions and $60 billion less in interest payments on that debt as a result of government actions—with the previous regime of nine years, which promised a budget surplus in the first year and every year thereafter and didn't deliver a single one. One of the things that characterises this government is that we go and we underpromise and overdeliver. We didn't go to an election and promise that we would produce budget surpluses, and yet we delivered not one but two. An opposition member interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 We dealt with issues such as—the member interjects about power prices; we didn't go to an election saying there would be a $600 billion nuclear plan. What we have done is to intervene in the market to put a cap on coal and gas prices. That's something that we did that was pretty unprecedented. We didn't promise we'd do that, but the global inflation spike and the biggest energy crisis since the 1970s required urgent government action. And we did that in partnership with the Perrottet government in New South Wales, a Liberal government in New South Wales that actually behaved responsibly at that time, unlike those opposite, who've opposed all of that like they opposed the energy bill relief, they opposed the tax cuts, they opposed the pay rises for low-income workers, they opposed fee-free TAFE—and said that people don't value it if they don't pay for it— Ms Ley 00AMN Where does all that money you hand out come from? Mr ALBANESE R36 and they opposed cheaper medicines. They opposed all of those measures, and the Leader of the Opposition interjects, suggesting—just like the speech she gave recently, which foreshadowed austerity measures going through. How will that help people? (Time expired) Energy 26 14:39 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Innovation. How is the Albanese Labor government's delivery of reliable energy driving good blue-collar jobs in regional Australia? What are the threats to this? 14:40 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the newly-shaven member for Hunter. His passion for jobs in our community is very laudable. We know that our vibrant, world-class industrial sector delivers good jobs for Australians—hundreds of thousands of jobs—and most of them in regional Australia. But the truth is that, without access to cheap and reliable energy, these industries and jobs are under threat. Just ask the workers at Tomago. Rio has been very clear: they haven't been able to secure competitive coal power offers. That's the truth of the matter. But it's a very different situation in Gladstone, where Rio have been able to secure renewable energy agreements. Boyne Island smelter has secured 80 per cent of its electricity needs through new firm renewable projects—the cheapest power available—at prices that will not only keep the smelter open but give the owners the confidence they need to invest. The bottom line is that, without access to reliable energy now and for years to come, heavy industries like smelters will not have a future. The future is renewables, and the Albanese government recognises this. We're supporting industries to move to renewable energy through the Powering the Regions Fund and the Green Aluminium Production Credit. The Net Zero Fund will invest $5 billion from the NRF on energy efficiency and decarbonising large industrial sites and will also invest in low-emissions manufacturing. The Capacity Investment Scheme is delivering 40 gigawatts of the cheapest generation storage available. The CEFC, which those opposite tried to abolish, has driven renewable energy infrastructure and technology projects nationwide. The truth is that, at Tomago, we're seeing the consequences of the coalition's decade of energy policy failure—22 failed energy policies, and the workers of Tomago are paying the price. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr CONROY 249127 We've been modernising our electricity grid, and the coalition has opposed us every step of the way. The coalition has campaigned against generational projects across the nation, and in abandoning net zero the National Party has betrayed regional Australia—even though they know regional Australia has the most to gain from taking action on climate. Renewables are creating jobs and new revenue sources across regional Australia. In campaigning against affordable energy, the coalition is campaigning against blue-collar jobs. We're making sure that we're delivering the cheapest power possible and in turn a world-class, vibrant industrial sector. In contrast, the coalition's chaos and division are making energy more expensive and unreliable and will kill manufacturing stone dead. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Page, Leader of the Opposition, no-one else was interjecting for the majority of that answer. To be continually interjecting like that is not acceptable. To assist with the remainder of question time, I ask you to limit the interjections so we can continue. I give the call to the member for Page. Energy 27 14:43 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Tomago Aluminium supports around a thousand workers in the Hunter region of New South Wales and is looking at a potential closure. Tomago CEO Jerome Dozol has said, 'Unfortunately, all market proposals received show future energy prices are not commercially viable.' Minister, you say renewable energy is cheaper and that you're installing lots of renewables for the future. If that is the case, why can't Tomago get an energy price in the future that is affordable? 14:44 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question and I thank him for quoting the Rio chief executive officer. I think it would have been better, however, if he'd not stopped mid-sentence in that quote. The member for Page read out part of the quote. Mr Dozol said, 'Unfortunately, all market proposals received so far show future energy prices are not commercially viable'—but there's not a full stop in the quote; there's a comma. He goes on to say, 'and there is significant uncertainty about when renewable projects will be available at the scale we need.' The point is that Rio and Tomago are arguing for more renewables, not less. They are not blaming renewables. They're calling for us to do more, and we agree with them. The opposition are the ones out of touch. The opposition are the ones who are so desperate that they actually have to cut a sentence halfway to make their case. Rio runs more than one smelter. They also run a smelter in Gladstone, and that smelter is safe. One of the reasons that that smelter is safe is that they have been able to enter into contracts with renewable energy providers—that's why. And of interest perhaps to the House is that some of the renewable energy contracts that the Gladstone smelter has entered into are with Smoky Creek solar farm and another solar farm in the area, Upper Calliope Solar Farm. As well as being the two solar farms that Rio has entered into arrangements with, do you know what else they've got in common? The member for Flynn opposed them both and publicly campaigned against both of them. This is the hypocrisy of those opposite. They rail against renewable energy and campaign against it, when people who actually understand how the economy works, like Rio, support renewable energy and enter into contracts with the very projects that those members opposite campaign against. They are so out of touch with the economic reality of Australia in 2025, they have to misquote Australia's biggest employers. Just a few moments ago, they were laughing at the chief executives of the Australian Industry Group and Business Council of Australia, and saying, 'What would they know about the economy?' Those geniuses who sit behind the Leader of the Opposition know better than the Business Council and the Australian Industry Group about business and industry! I think that tells us a lot. Resources Industry 27 14:46 Mr MATT SMITH 312393 Leichhardt My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring a strong resources sector that creates good and well-paid jobs in Australia's regions? What proposals are threatening Australia's resources sector? 14:47 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. He knows, like the Albanese Labor government knows, that a strong resources sector is vital for regional communities and for Australia's economic future. That's why we're backing projects that not only deliver jobs today but set us up for the industries of tomorrow. The road to net zero runs through Australia's resources sector. Through our critical minerals resources, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity for new Australian resources projects to underpin the global transition—that's right, the global transition—to net zero. The Albanese Labor government supports net zero emissions by 2050, which, of course, stands in stark contrast to the utter circus that is the coalition's failed climate policy—and that's on top of 22 failed energy policies, four of which they came up with in 14 days not that long ago. The chaos and division of those opposite would make energy more expensive and more unreliable. It would absolutely kill investment in this country. It is those opposite that are the threat to our resources sector in this country—have no doubt about it. Meanwhile, this government, the Albanese Labor government, is getting on with the job of delivering a strong resources sector that is backing in new jobs and new investment in our regions. We are backing the critical minerals and rare earths sector through our $17 billion production tax incentive. That is the biggest government investment in an Australian resources sector in this nation's history. And those opposite voted against it—let everyone remember that. But, on this side, we know that every dollar invested in critical minerals and resources helps to scale up projects and bring more jobs to our regions, more apprenticeships and more opportunities for small business right around our regional communities. This government is backing important, strategic rare earths projects. Take, for example, in Alice Springs, the great Arafura Nolans rare earths project. This government has invested significantly in that project, but we don't invest alone. Alongside us are credit agencies from the governments of Canada, the Republic of Korea, Germany and of course the United States of America. And why are they backing it? Because it is an important geostrategic project of global significance. But for the people of Alice Springs, what does it mean? It will support 600 construction jobs, with 350 new ongoing roles in Alice Springs. That is of vital importance for a town like Alice. While those opposite squabble and squawk about their various energy policies, their various climate policies, this government continues to represent. We will deliver for the regions while those opposite pretend to represent the regions. We are serious about backing the resources sector of this country, while those only pretend to. (Time expired) Environment 28 14:50 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin This question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. The benefits in the current environmental protection reforms are at risk of being undermined by huge loopholes. Under the reforms, projects can pay for environmental damage into a centralised offsets fund, but in New South Wales, Queensland, the Pilbara and overseas these funds have consistently failed to deliver real environmental outcomes. Will the government consider amendments to put stronger safeguards around this offsets fund so that it actually delivers for nature? 14:50 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Curtin for raising the legislation, and that particular aspect of it, and I acknowledge the member for Curtin who, in her time in this place, has followed these issues related to the environment throughout her whole time here. If I can go through the changes that are there with respect to offsets in two sections, if I may. The first concept is a change—at the moment, under environmental law, there is a principle of no net loss. Under the new principal, it goes to net gain. That's a significant shift that happens in terms of what offsets are aiming to deliver for the environment. The second concept at the moment is that a business delivers an offset directly themselves, and that's the only option. As the member for Curtin has described, under the legislation it becomes an option of either delivering the direct offset to the business itself or paying for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment. There is potentially a real strength for the environment in the payment mechanism if we get this right, and it's this: when you have small offsets all over the place, effectively you end up with no sections that are large enough or have landscape scale to have true environmental resilience, particularly when we're dealing with climate change. If you can have somebody who is independently charged with looking at where those offsets occur, then instead of businesses choosing this area and that area, where effectively you end up with a map of Australia that looks like someone's got a toothbrush and splattered bits of paint to get these tiny little dots with no resilience, you end up with a situation where you can deliver landscape scale offsets which are capable of resilience and, therefore, delivering a long-term outcome for the environment in a scenario where we've made the change I referred to at the start, of going from no net loss to a net gain. That's why the independent Restoration Contributions Holder is established. The concept of that holder is effectively, for the land sector, an equivalent to what we have under the Water Act for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, where you have someone who's in charge of holding, in this case, an amount of money, but delivering with a direct obligation to provide landscape scale outcomes, which, project by project, the environment has never been able to get out of the EPBC Act. The concept that the member refers to in terms of the government's appetite for amendments, the minister has made clear that we are in discussions on this legislation. We want to see it be able to get through. We are in constructive conversations with the different groups around the parliament. We want to make sure that we get this done, and we get it done this year. Medicare 28 14:54 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government's record investment in bulk-billing making it easier for Australians to see a GP for free after a decade of cuts and neglect? What has been the response to these changes? 14:54 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh The member for Gilmore is an amazing advocate for a stronger Medicare on the South Coast. Because of her relentless advocacy, we'll soon be extending the operating hours at the Batemans Bay urgent care clinic to 18 hours a day, seven days a week to soak up some of the demand that is going to flow from changes to the hospital at Batemans Bay that the New South Wales government has made. We'll also shortly announce details of the urgent care clinic at Nowra that is going to soak up some of the demand from the really busy emergency department at the Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital. But it's not just better urgent care that the member for Gilmore campaigns about. She's been out and about talking up our record investment in bulk-billing. She recently visited Grand Pacific Health Centre in Nowra, where the practice manager, Charise Morris, said this: 'This will make a huge difference. If people don't have to pay that gap for general consults, that's food in their mouths.' The Sussex Doctors at Sussex Inlet posted this on Facebook—she brought this to my attention: Healthcare made more affordable at Sussex Doctors! We're proud to be a Fully Bulk Billing Clinic, ensuring everyone in our community can access quality medical care. The Prime Minister will love this: Your appointment covered by Medicare—just bring your card. The Bomaderry Creek Health Centre also said on Facebook that they're bulk-billing all patients from 1 November 2025. Recently, the member met with GPs at the Queen Street Medical Centre at Moruya. They're also taking up this expanded bulk-billing incentive. In just one week, the number of GP clinics in Gilmore that bulk-bill every patient that comes through their door has doubled. Today, almost half of the practices in Gilmore are 100 per cent bulk-billing, and that number will continue to grow because these clinics in regional Australia get an even bigger boost from our record investment than clinics in the city. The Medicare payment for a standard bulk-billed consult in a town like Moruya last week was $44. This week it is $87, double the price it was last week. It has doubled in one week. And those bulk-billing clinics, for 100 per cent of their patients, get 12½ per cent loading on top of that. That is why these clinics are making the shift. It's obviously good for their patients. The patients can go to their doctors when they need it rather than when they think they can afford it. But it's also good for the practice, and it's also good for the individual doctors. That's why the member for Gilmore is out there talking up our record investment. Economy 29 14:57 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Prime Minister, and it follows the Treasurer's earlier remarks about today's RBA statement. What the Treasurer didn't reveal about that statement is the RBA's forecast for headline inflation to peak at 3.7 per cent in the middle of next year—well above the target band—and not to return to the band until 2027. My question to the Prime Minister is: given the government's spending is running four times faster than the economy, isn't it time to rein the Treasurer in to stop his spending spree? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 When the House comes to order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Nothing has started yet, so we'll just reset. You've asked your question; the Treasurer has the call. 14:58 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I don't think the shadow Treasurer has thought through his question, because if he had, or if he understood the forecast released half an hour or so ago, or if he was being honest with the House and therefore with the Australian people, if he was talking about the forecast, he would point out that the Reserve Bank has revised down the contribution made by public spending to the economy. Either he doesn't understand that—which is troubling—or he does understand that and he's trying to be dishonest about it. Equally troubling. When it comes to the Reserve Bank's forecast on inflation, the point that they have made in their Statement on monetary policy today is that they consider a number of the factors which drove up the inflation number in the most recent data to be transitory. They do acknowledge, as we do, that there are still inflationary pressures in the economy, but they say, when you compare quarter on quarter, they expect there to be a moderation in December. That's not necessarily my opinion; those are the words that the Reserve Bank put out in their Statement on monetary policy about half an hour ago. So he should be honest about it. Similarly, when it comes to this idea—which is wrong—that government spending is the reason why we have seen an unwelcome tick-up in inflation in the most recent data, if he wants to say that government spending and government budgets are the decisive factor in interest rate decisions then he needs to explain those three interest rate cuts this year, including two after the March budget. If he wants to talk about what the Reserve Bank governor thinks about the government's fiscal position then perhaps he could read into the Hansard, as I'm about to do, what Governor Bullock said last week when she was asked about the fiscal position. This is what Governor Bullock had to say: … we have got relatively low— debt— compared with many other countries, relatively low debt-to-GDP ratios. Our deficits aren't—we've had a couple of surpluses and the most recent deficit, in fact, is … quite small as well. This view that the Reserve Bank governor has was shared by Fitch Ratings last week when they reaffirmed our AAA credit rating. So I'm very happy to take as many questions as he can muster when it comes to the forecasts and when it comes to the fact that, even with the revised forecasts, the Reserve Bank is expecting inflation under this government to be considerably lower than the higher and rising inflation left to us by those opposite. Housing 30 15:01 Ms COMER 316551 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting first home buyers into their own homes sooner, and what other approaches to housing is the government being asked to consider? 15:01 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Petrie for her question. Since our government was elected in 2022, almost a thousand of her constituents have bought their first home with the support and backing of our government, and there will be many more to come. Australia is in the grip of a housing crisis that's been building for 40 years. We know that the long-term fix here is that we've got to build more homes. The majority of our historic $43 billion housing agenda is devoted to doing just that. The more housing we build, the more affordable housing becomes for Australians. We got some good news just yesterday: we learned that building approvals around Australia are up 15.3 per cent on last year. These are meaningful numbers, and this number has been growing fairly consistently now for 20 months. We have got a long way to go on housing, but we're seeing some really important progress. Our government knows that people need help on housing right now, and that is why we are so proud to see a massive expansion in homeownership opportunities. Our government has now helped 197,000 Australians around the country get into their first home with our five per cent deposit scheme. The member asked me about alternative approaches, and we do see from those opposite a completely different attitude to housing. They are completely out of touch, not just with energy policy but also with the housing experience of Australians. In fairness to those opposite, this is not a new feature of the 48th Parliament. You will remember that, when Malcolm Turnbull was prime minister, he said the answer for young people trying to get into their own home was that parents should shell out to help their kids, which doesn't help much if your parents aren't millionaires. When Joe Hockey was asked what advice he'd give to a young person struggling to get into housing—get this—he said, 'Get a good job that pays good money,' as if the housing challenges facing our country are some kind of personal failing of the young people around the nation. We know that, for most of the time the coalition were in office, they were so uninterested they didn't even bother having a housing minister, and yesterday the member for Wright said the quiet part out loud. According to him, the coalition didn't have a housing minister because there was no problem with housing under the former government. Let me be really clear. The reason they didn't have a housing minister wasn't that there was no crisis; it was that they didn't care. Under those opposite, house prices in Sydney more than doubled, rents skyrocketed and an entire generation in our country gave up on the idea of homeownership. They spent nine years doing absolutely nothing about this problem. They then went into opposition, and they've spent the last three years trying to block and delay things that will help. They're now doing everything in their power to show all of you in the public gallery that they are not even remotely concerned with your problems; they are just concerned with their own. I wouldn't trust them on housing or anything else that matters to you and your family. (Time expired) Great Western Highway 30 15:04 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. In 2007 the National Party turned the first sod on the Bells Line of Road expressway. This kicked off a golden age of broken promises, delays and funding raids on a fast road over the Blue Mountains that all major parties are guilty of, and the traffic jams from the Central West to Sydney are worse than ever. Will your government commit to turning the Great Western Highway into a genuine expressway to Sydney? 15:05 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Calare for the question. I know this is an issue that he feels very strongly about. I understand, through my office's engagement with the office of the New South Wales minister, Minister Aitchison, that they are currently undertaking a white paper, investigating options for upgrades to the Great Western Highway, and that is currently well progressed. I also understand that the member have met with Minister Aitchison to discuss the progress of this work in New South Wales. As the member would appreciate, with projects of this nature and size, we can't really proceed without the support of the New South Wales government. Their consideration of this project is still underway, and of course then, as we do in the usual way, through budget processes, we will consider any proposals to see whether the Commonwealth will co-invest in those. As you are aware, the proposed tunnel between Katoomba and Lithgow was committed to by the former LNP government, with only $2 billion committed for works either side of the tunnel and an extra $500 million committed by the New South Wales government. The middle section alone of that tunnel would cost in the order of $11 billion and would be the longest road tunnel in the country, under the Blue Mountains. All of that was unfunded when we came to office. It's pretty emblematic, frankly, of the way in which those opposite announced road funding projects, standing up with their press releases, sometimes with fake cheques, but couldn't deliver. It was all about the announcement and not about the delivery. We have changed that. That is what we are focused on—delivering projects that are properly funded and properly planned—and that is important. That's what we saw from those opposite. We are not interested in that approach, because it means you simply cannot deliver those projects. I know we remain very committed to your area, Member for Calare. We're investing a lot there already. We've invested planning money for Dixons Long Point Crossing. There's money for the Coxs River Road upgrade and the Peak Hill Road upgrade. There's over $22 million for oversize and overmass improvements on the Golden Highway and $10 million for those critical renewable energy zone roads. There are projects in community infrastructure that you've advocated strongly for—$15 million for the Orange sporting precinct, for example. We're investing in infrastructure in Calare, but we do it properly and in a way that we know we can deliver, properly planned and properly costed, unlike those opposite, who, frankly, raised expectations and then failed to deliver anything. Indigenous Australians 31 15:08 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting First Nations Australians living in remote parts of the country by securing good jobs, easing the cost of living and delivering essential infrastructure? 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lingiari for her question. It was an absolute pleasure to be with the member at Uluru, just over a week ago, to celebrate 40 years since the handover of Uluru-Kata Tjuta to First Nations people, to the traditional owners. It was a wonderful celebration and it was indeed a great honour for me, as Prime Minister, to be there. Labor promised to abolish the failed CDP, which was essentially Work for the Dole, providing no training, no skills, no real wages and no real advancement for First Nations people in remote communities, and to replace if with real jobs with proper wages and decent conditions. And we've done just that. As of Saturday 1 November, the CDP is gone for good, and it's good nationwide. We've replaced it with the Remote Australia Employment Service, building on the 1,700 remote jobs we're already rolling out—over halfway to the 3,000 that we will deliver. This is all about our government's focus on economic empowerment for Indigenous Australians—tangible, positive change creating new opportunities. We also have a responsibility to ensure that every community has access to the fundamentals of a decent life, things that most Australians take for granted. Last year, our government made a generational investment in remote housing in the Northern Territory. Our 10-year agreement will deliver up to 2,700 homes in the Northern Territory. Many of them are up and running already, and I met people in that community who have already benefited from this program tackling overcrowding and creating local jobs. We have 33 remote water projects on track to bring clean and reliable water to 25,000 people. In response to the Closing the Gap report, we promised new action to cut the cost of 30 household staples for families in remote communities. As of Saturday, more than a hundred community stores have signed up to that. That's about getting essentials like flour and tinned fruit and toothpaste—those essentials that most of us take for granted in Australia—so that people can stay healthy on country. Our government is focused on making a real difference for First Nations people in remote communities, on economic empowerment and healthy lives supported by good jobs and wages. The member for Lingiari is such an outstanding advocate for people in those communities, and I congratulate her on the extraordinary work that she is doing which is why she was so well received by the local population, the Anangu people, there at Uluru. Housing 31 15:11 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash My question is to the Prime Minister. House prices, in the month of September, grew at a faster pace than at any other time in the last two years. Now industry is warning that the government's reckless expansion of its Help to Buy Scheme will push house prices up by 6.6 per cent in 2026 and for several years after that. Hopes for a Christmas rate cut are now dashed. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he said he has real and lasting plans for cheaper mortgages? 15:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Monash for her question, and, indeed, I hope that she writes to the 1,358 members of her electorate who've benefited from the five per cent home deposits. I hope she writes to them and says that, somehow, it's inappropriate that you're buying your own home and that what you should have done was just stay paying off someone else's mortgage rather than paying off your own mortgage, because that is what the member for Monash is suggesting. But she raises housing policy under this government that I'm proud to lead with a housing minister who's doing an extraordinary job supporting increases in social housing and increased build-to-rent schemes for private rentals as well as increased homeownership across the board. In August, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition claimed about this policy: … today Labor announced a revised Morrison government policy which we developed to help Australians get into their first home with a smaller deposit. So it was their policy that they tried to claim, then they're against it. Now they're against the 1,358 Australians who have benefited from this in just that one electorate. But we know that there is a comparison, of course, because we heard it yesterday from the member for Wright. The member for Wright said—and he backed it up today, saying it exactly when the Minister for Housing was making her contribution in this chamber—that the reason why there was no housing minister under the former coalition government was that it wasn't needed. Apparently, up to 2022, everything was hunky-dory. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Hawke HWO On relevance, of course, there is a question here. The Prime Minister is not attempting to answer the question. He's paying a lot of attention to the member for Wright—which I'd recommend, of course—but that wasn't in the question, and this is a serious question about an increase in his own government scheme leading to increased house prices. The Prime Minister has not addressed it, and he's not addressing the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The manager has raised his point of order. The Prime Minister was asked about house prices growing at a faster pace over the last two years. He's indicated he's covering that as the topic. He was asked about Help to Buy and interest rate cuts. The question was: is this what he meant by 'cheaper mortgages'? There was a lot in that question. He's commented on some commentary about the topic. I'll ask him to remain directly relevant in light of what the manager has raised. Mr ALBANESE R36 Those opposite believe, as I was saying, that everything was hunky-dory before May 2022. There were houses being built everywhere, there were social homes and people were getting into public housing, and rentals were apparently coming down under them. It's all nonsense, because it's all about supply. What we have done is concentrate on supply—increased building and increased supply. The increased approvals figures that came out yesterday showed that under this government you are getting an increase in supply. As we go right around the country—all the projects that are opening under the programs that we have established—over 520,000 new homes have been built under Labor. We're just getting started. There is more to do but we will deliver. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 32 15:16 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese government standing up for workers, including those who have to work on public holidays? What other approaches have been put forward? 15:16 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the member for Werriwa for that question. It has been nine weeks and four days since our legislation to protect penalty rates came into effect. This government took this action because, if you work on weekends and public holidays, you deserve penalty and overtime rates. If you are one of the almost 6,000 award-reliant workers working in Victoria today, our legislation has protected your penalty rates. The Albanese Labor government backs low-paid workers. I'm asked how this compares to other approaches. When our legislation was before the parliament, the coalition used every excuse to stand in the way of action to protect penalty rates. The shadow minister for employment did not miss an opportunity to criticise our protections of penalty rates. He claimed it does nothing for workers. Of course, this is not a new position for the shadow minister. In 2017 he voted against protecting Sunday penalty rates in the parliament. But it seems that, in the past few days, the shadow minister has had a change of heart. I noticed over the weekend that the shadow minister has a newfound love of public holidays. In fact, the shadow minister has declared on social media that, under a Wilson government, there will be a new public holiday on Melbourne Cup Day—primarily, it seems, to get him out of coming to parliament! I'm not sure if this is official Liberal Party policy, but I note it has been enthusiastically backed by Senator Hume. But I hope a policy of this nature will include protections for all workers—not just politicians, like he seems to advocate for. A word of caution, though, for workers right across Australia: workers probably shouldn't put this public holiday in their diary just yet, because, according to a recent poll, even the Independent member for Wentworth is a more preferred Liberal leader than the member for Goldstein! But you never know; he might just be a little slow to get out of the gate, and we may see a Wilson government sometime in the future. But, of course, in all seriousness, it is incredibly disappointing that we see the coalition completely talking about themselves and which days they're going to have off. Is it going to be the member for Farrer, the member for Canning, the member for Hume or even the member for Goldstein that will lead this party? It's only our Labor government that will back Aussie workers. Housing 33 15:20 Mr GEE 261393 Calare To the Minister for Housing— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! There is an order for questions, which everyone knows about. I don't know why— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We do not need this behaviour. Mr GEE 261393 To the Minister for Housing: in the midst of a national housing crisis, the Central West of New South Wales and country communities around Australia are missing out on key national housing funding. Community housing providers like Housing Plus can't get a look-in with the Housing Australia Future Fund. The statistics show that regional New South Wales is not getting its fair share. The Housing Australia Future Fund is in danger of being known as the 'Housing Australia Future Fund for City People'. When will country people get a fair go from this fund? 15:21 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Can I thank the member for Calare for his question and the really powerful advocacy he provides for people in his part of the world. He's absolutely right. I'm on my feet often, talking about the shape of this national housing crisis that's been cooking in our country for 40 years. It has a very, very important regional dimension, and I thank those—particularly on the crossbench, and I'd include Dr Haines in this—people who are consistently coming to me and speaking the voice of regional Australians and the need for us to continue to work with those of you in the bush who are struggling with housing. The homeownership statistics in your part of the world are looking pretty good—I think there are about 1,300 people in the member for Calare's electorate who've got into first home ownership with our government's backing—but home building is going to continue to be an issue. The Housing Australia Future Fund is the centrepiece of our government's commitment to building 55,000 social and affordable homes around the country. Five thousand of those homes have already been constructed, and most of those have tenants in them. We've got about 25,000 that are in planning or construction. The remainder of the Housing Australia Future Fund has not yet been committed. What I would say to the honourable member is that Housing Australia has a requirement to deliver housing around the country, but I'd offer him the opportunity, if he'd like, for me to meet with his community housing providers to talk about the remainder of the HAFF money. There are two really important funds that are being expended at the moment. One is the remainder of the Housing Australia Future Fund. The other is part of the $1.2 billion commitment that our government has made to building crisis and transitional accommodation around the country. I might add that that's 20 times what the coalition spent in nine years, and we're expending that in our first five years in government. This is another thing that the member for Calare might be interested in. So I'd say to the honourable member I'm really pleased to come and talk to you and your community about that. And I will just say, to the parliament, all of us represent local electorates where there's housing need that's particularly acute. We've all got people in our communities that need and deserve extra support from our government on housing. After a nine-year period where the coalition built 373 social and affordable homes, we're building 55,000 over five years. Whatever you might like to say about housing, this is a really meaningful contribution to a national problem. I meet the tenants who live in these homes. I hear how their lives have been radically changed overnight because, for the first time their lives, many of them have got access to secure housing. I'm thinking of a woman who I met in Adelaide recently, who was looking at becoming homeless late in her life. She's in a Housing Australia Future Fund home. It's changed her life and the life of her family, and we're going to do it 55,000 more times. Education 34 15:24 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help Australians with a student debt and to make our education system better and fairer? 15:24 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Can I thank, again, my friend the member for Macnamara for his question. Well, the race that stops the nation has been run and won, and there are a few lucky winners across the country. But, in the next few weeks, there won't just be a few winners; there'll be millions of them. That's because we're cutting student debt by 20 per cent. We're now in the home straight. A year ago, the Prime Minister announced it. Six months ago, Australia backed it. Three months ago, we passed it. In just a couple of weeks time, Australians will get it. Millions of Australians will get their student debt cut by 20 per cent. Millions will get their debt cut by thousands of dollars—on average, about $5½ thousand. Young people don't always see something for them on the ballot paper when there's an election, but they did this year, and they voted for it in their millions. And now they're about to get it and to see it and to feel it and to hear it. They'll get a ding on their phone, an email or a text message, to tell them that their debt has been cut by 20 per cent. When that happens, there'll be one person that they can thank for it, and that's this Prime Minister. I'm asked by the member for Macnamara what else we are doing to build a better and a fairer education system. I can advise the House that paid prac has now started. That's financial help for teaching students, nursing students, midwifery students and social work students while they do their practical training. That's real cost-of-living help. So far, more than 65,000 Australians have applied to get it. I can also advise the House that next year two new end-to-end medical schools will open up to train more doctors, one in the north, in Darwin, and one in the south, in Launceston. Next week, I'll open two more university study hubs, one on the west coast, in Northam, and one on the east coast, in Beenleigh. This Friday, I'll be in Smart Street in the heart of Fairfield, in the heart of Western Sydney, with the member for McMahon, opening the university study hub that the member for Fowler asked me about just last week, bringing university closer to where people live. This is what delivery looks like, and this is what we are focused on: cutting student debt by 20 per cent, paid prac for teaching and nursing students, and more university study hubs in the bush and in the suburbs. And there's more to come. Mr Albanese R36 Christian Brothers taught me mercy, Mr Speaker, and I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper in all of our interests. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 34 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Melbourne Cup 34 15:27 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Jamie Melham has ridden into the history books, becoming the second female jockey to win the Melbourne Cup on Half Yours, following Michelle Payne on Prince of Penzance 10 years ago. She's also won the double, the Caulfield Cup-Melbourne Cup double, obviously being the first female jockey to do both. The member for Wannon, co-chair of the parliamentary friends of racing, tells me it was a beautiful ride. DOCUMENTS 34 DOCUMENTS Presentation 34 15:28 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These 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. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 34 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 34 15:28 The SPEAKER 53517 Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nomination of the honourable member for Groom to be a member of the Speaker's panel. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Regional Australia 34 15:28 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Page proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's betrayal of regional Australia is hurting family budgets and businesses. I call upon those honourable 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— 15:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the business of the day be called on. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion—that the business of the day be called on—be agreed to.  

The House divided. [15:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 84 AYES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 49 NOES Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. (Teller) Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BILLS 36 BILLS Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 36

Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025

Second Reading 36 15:36 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I thank the House for the House's keen interest in the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025. In summing up debate, I'd like to thank the opposition and others in the House for their constructive engagement with the government on this bill and for their support for its passage. I thank all members for their contributions to debate on the bill. In particular, I'd like to thank the member for Wannon for his productive discussions with us on measures relating to ensuring supply of critical fuels during an emergency shortage. These discussions have resulted in the government moving amendments so that the minister will not be able to reduce the minimum stockholding obligation for more than the duration of six months unless subsequent decisions are made to grant further temporary reductions. This will provide an additional safeguard on the minister's power to reduce the amount of critical fuels an entity must hold in its stockpiles. I'd also like to acknowledge the amendment to be moved by the member for Wentworth relating to the availability of paid parental leave for serving partners of ADF personnel deployed overseas for extended periods of time. The government will not be supporting this amendment, as the member for Wentworth's draft amendment would remove reference to a determination made under the Defence Act 1903 so that the provision would no longer be tied to the specific meaning it holds under the Defence Determination 2016/19, Conditions of Service. This would introduce uncertainty as to how a court would interpret the word 'deployed', which is not otherwise defined in the Paid Parental Leave Act. In addition, it does not meet the intended purposes of the bill: better regulation, cutting red tape and ensuring streamlined access to essential services. However, we're committed to working constructively with the member on the issue. As the Treasurer said in his second reading speech, better regulation is a key focus of the Economic Reform Roundtable we convened earlier this year and a key focus of our second-term economic agenda. The government is committed to better regulation which boosts productivity, gets investment moving and creates Australian jobs for today's economy. That's what this bill is about. It cuts compliance costs and cuts red tape. In short, it cuts the clutter. It's part of a comprehensive suite of reforms we've pushed forward since our roundtable. These reforms include cutting 500 further nuisance tariffs; working through 400 ideas to reduce regulatory burden from 38 Commonwealth regulators; tasking the Council of Financial Regulators to declutter and improve regulation in the financial sector, with a priority focus on streamlining and harmonising data collection; and officially opening our Investor Front Door to make it quicker and easier for investors to back big projects that create jobs and opportunities for Australians. These are all important steps in implementing our government's agenda to make our economy more dynamic, resilient and productive. Passing the bill through the House today is another step forward. This bill will make regulation work better for Australians and let businesses get on with the job. The number of measures and government agencies that will be reformed by this bill is a measure of how widely we're looking across government to improve regulation. This bill contains 60 measures that will amend 28 acts, repeal two acts, and directly affect and improve the operations of 13 Commonwealth government agencies. These are all meaningful improvements to how Australians and other businesses work with these agencies. It'll help Services Australia shift towards a tell-us-once approach to how it delivers services. That means Australians won't have to put in their details every time they access a different government service they need. As an example, once this bill is passed, we can make changes so that, when Australians update their Centrelink bank details, Medicare gets them too. This will help people claim their unpaid Medicare benefits, which are estimated to total $270 million owed to almost a million Australians. We know it'll take time to make this tell-us-once shift, but this bill will let Services Australia begin this important work. It'll reduce unnecessary regulations to improve access to government services, including by doubling the amount of time that patients can have access to multiple imaging services, which are requested on a single form. In addition, with an individual's consent, their healthcare identifier may be used as part of research, which may, for example, facilitate longitudinal tracking of health journeys and better integration of clinical and social data, providing more accurate evidence bases for health service policy and design. The bill will help reduce the regulatory burden on Australians and on industry, including by introducing measures to allow secure, sustainable, suitable digital options for identity verification for couples getting married. And it will help increase government efficiency and improved productivity, including by providing additional flexibility for government to respond to temporary critical fuel shortages, allowing stocks to be reduced but not depleted. All of this will make real improvements to how regulations work for Australians. And these are only some examples of the important reforms this bill delivers. As the Treasurer said in his second reading speech: Regulation should be there to protect Australians and empower them, not weigh them down. Regulation must ensure our economy works for Australians without holding them back. That's what the reforms in this bill will help to achieve. I thank the House for supporting our work to deliver the regulatory environment that best serves the Australian community and the Australian economy. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 37 15:43 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I move the government amendment as circulated: (1) Schedule 4, item 21, page 120 (after line 6), after subsection 16A(3), insert: (3A) In addition, the period of the reduction must not exceed 6 months. However, the Minister may make reductions under this section for the MSO product for the entity for additional periods not exceeding 6 months each. Question agreed to. 15:43 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak to the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill in the consideration in detail stage. I was intending to move an amendment in relation to a member of the defence forces who had been caught up in bureaucracy and, through this bureaucracy, was not able to access the paid parental leave that she was entitled to as an Australian citizen. The minister referred to this in his speech. However, I spoke to the Deputy Prime Minister today, and he made assurances that he will write to Defence today or tomorrow in relation to this to ensure that future members of the defence forces and their spouses will be entitled to the paid parental leave that the member of my community, Major Caitlin Pedel, was not allowed to access under the current rules. I thank the DPM for his action in this space. I will be looking for those critical assurances very carefully. I also understand and have had assurances that the government will make the legislative changes required to make this a permanent change in the legislation—not just through the powers he's enacting in the next couple of days. I will be looking very carefully for those changes. I want to note, however, the point of this—which goes to some of the points that the minister raised, saying that the issue that I raised was not about better regulation and better government services. I really want to take issue with that, because I think it does actually go to having better regulation and not wasting taxpayers' money, so driving productivity. In the case of the individual I was discussing, this person was a major in the Army. She was deployed overseas, and because of her deployment—her status—she was not entitled to paid parental leave. The AAT recognised that that was not the appropriate decision, and that was overturned. Services Australia then took this major to the Federal Court so that they could overturn the ruling of the AAT. In that particular instance, I cannot see how it is in the interests of the taxpayer for Services Australia to spend more money fighting an Australian member of the ADF on paid parental leave which she was entitled to—although, under a technicality, she wasn't entitled to it. So my question is: why would Services Australia take this person to court? It is those sorts of actions that are wasteful in terms of government resources. It makes Australian citizens mistrustful of government when the bureaucracy cannot seem to understand the purpose or the intention of the law. It is exactly these sorts of things that I do think we need to address in this sort of legislation. I commend the government for the introduction of this legislation. I spoke about it in positive terms in the House. But I also want to acknowledge that the government needs to be much more ambitious about this sort of legislation. I would hope to see this sort of legislation every sitting fortnight—and much more substantially—if we are going to truly redress the balance between regulation as risk management and regulation that is retarding growth. We do need to get that balance right, and the current settings are not quite right. 15:47 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I'll just respond briefly to some of the comments of the member for Wentworth. I thank her for her actions in raising the issues of her constituent, and I believe it is indeed appropriate that she withdraws her amendment. The government appreciates the member for Wentworth's concerns about the availability of paid parental leave for ADF personnel deployed or posted overseas for extended periods of time. Indeed, we've recognised the importance of that issue as part of our response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The member for Wentworth will know, through the conversation with the Deputy Prime Minister that she referenced, that the government is currently exploring options to expand access to paid parental leave for ADF personnel posted overseas for extended periods of time, including by exploring amendments to Defence employment provisions which may not require legislation. The Paid Parental Leave scheme is, of course, a creation of a previous Labor government. Its expansion was a decision of this government. It is an issue that is close to the heart of the government, and, indeed, we have begun extending the scheme by two weeks each year until it reaches 26 weeks from 1 July 2026. And, from July this year, the government is paying superannuation on government funded paid parental leave. In relation to the Major Pedel matter that the member raises, I'd simply advise the House that all costs of legal representation for Ms Pedel in the Federal Court have been paid by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth did not seek any legal costs against Ms Pedel in the Federal Court. We understand the Administrative Review Tribunal has reserved its decision, and the government will consider its findings in due course. DSS and Defence officials continue to work together to advise government on options to address the issues raised by Major Pedel's case and by the royal commission. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 38 15:49 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025, Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 38

Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025

Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025

Returned from Senate 38 Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 38

Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025

Second Reading 38 15:50 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with the six related environment bills. 15:52 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell The opposition does not agree to debate the bills in cognate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Okay. Then we are going to deal with the first of these bills, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time. 15:53 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I rise to speak on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, the first of seven bills, which will now be considered separately, on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. As I've said from the very start of this process, when I became the shadow minister for the environment, environmental reform is too important to get wrong. I speak to mainstream Australians about this, about the things that impact them, and there are many things wrong with this reform from those opposite. The importance of getting this right should not be understated. Without balanced reform that ensures the best possible outcome for industry, productivity and the environment, we are simply greenlighting offshore investment. What does that mean to mainstream Australians? That means job losses. The minister has done the rounds of the press gallery, spruiking these bills as balanced reform, but nothing about this legislation is balanced. It's going to send productivity backwards. But hang on—don't those opposite have a so-called productivity agenda? What about the Treasurer's productivity roundtable, which was crucial for jobs, business and growth? Those opposite must have a pretty short memory, because in their current state these reforms are guaranteed to halt productivity in its tracks. That is saying something, because, as Australians have noticed, Australia already has a productivity problem. Economists warn, as reported in the Australian Financial Review late last September, that lagging investment by Australian businesses in research and development is contributing to a plunge in our country's productivity. Our global productivity ranking has literally tanked under this government. It has tanked absolutely. Australia's productivity growth is ranked second-last amongst OECD countries, beating only Mexico. The proof is in the pudding, with a sluggish 0.2 per cent productivity growth in the June 2025 quarter, and in the last financial year labour productivity fell by 0.7 per cent. A lack of investment in resources has significantly contributed to this downturn. It's largely owing to the copious amounts of red and green tape under Labor's first term—not in this term, not what they're doing now, but what they did in the last term. We've seen more than 5,000 new regulations—not 500—tying mainstream Australians in knots. We agree something needs to change and to be done to amend these outdated environmental laws to speed up the lack of growth under Labor's watch. Australia needs to create jobs. We need to encourage investment and opportunity for her citizens, not imperil our nation's wealth and our future under this government. If we don't do something now, those opposite risk major repercussions, major flaws, major oversights and major damage. The way they're tracking, AUKUS is potentially at risk. The Prime Minister's shiny new key critical minerals deal with the US is absolutely at risk. They risk sending jobs and investment in resources and mining offshore with this legislation. I can assure you, we're much better off keeping those here in Australia than in other countries with a far worse track record on polluting our environment. We need to look to preserve our environment and mitigate the risk posed to our native threatened species. The government has been working on environmental reform for three years now. We saw Minister Plibersek's friendless proposal fail to deliver last term. After Minister Watt was appointed, he said, 'It is my intention to deliver these reforms within the next 18 months.' So why, all of a sudden, did this become the great race—the great Melbourne Cup race—to get this legislation passed before Christmas? Why? Why give stakeholders, proponents, and those that will be affected by this legislation just a smidge over the finish line of three weeks? That's what the minister is outlining. Expecting stakeholders to sift through 1,459 pages of the biggest legislative reform to the act since its inception is an absolute joke. It's an insult to Australians, and it's an insult to stakeholders. The coalition has known the importance of this environmental reform. We've long known about it, since it was introduced by Robert Hill back in 2001, when he said it would last only 10-15 years. Now, here we are in year 26, and still no reforms. When we were in government, the Leader of the Opposition, then environment minister commissioned the Graeme Samuel review—a review with recommendations that are largely proving to be the reference point to these key legislative changes under the reform. As environment minister, the Leader of the Opposition introduced legislation to reform this bill. Labor and the Greens blocked it. Now, Minister Watt—the Prime Minister's Mr Fix-It—is coming to us with his tail between his legs, needing us to strike a deal. The coalition believes environmental laws, when done right, can be a great, balanced outcome for business and the environment. We have a strong record on the environment. In fact, we have a proud Liberal history on the environment. The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 during Malcolm Fraser's time as Prime Minister. Fraser and his government had already taken steps to protect the reef, including the prohibition of oil-drilling in the area. During the Howard government, great Liberal warrior for the environment Robert Hill declared the Great Australian Bight a marine park. In 2000 the Lord Howe Island Marine Park was proclaimed, also under the Howard government. When the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for the environment, the Christmas Island Marine Park was declared, as was the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Marine Park. In that same year the coalition announced $1 billion for the Great Barrier Reef fund, and our $280 million Recycling Modernisation Fund drove a $1 billion transformation of the waste and recycling sector. We invested billions in threatened species, habitat restoration, marine conservation and environmental projects. We have the environmental credentials on action. I believe in good environmental policy and investment that delivers great outcomes for business and nature. I believe in protecting the environment for Australians. I believe in investing in the environment for Australians. As I mentioned earlier, we know Labor has failed to deliver any reform in the last three years. Labor has a history of failure to deliver and that remains true, as evidenced by this reform. When the member for Sydney was the minister, her proposed legislation would have made productivity worse. The laws were so bad that the Western Australian premier had to run an intervention, and the Prime Minister pulled the pin on the reforms the night before they were due to be voted on in the chamber. These were desperate messages followed by desperate actions during desperate times for this government. Since then, we've seen the distance—call it a wedge, if you like—between Minister Plibersek and the Prime Minister. The question is: why has Roger Cook been silent on the current proposed reforms, especially when business is telling us the current proposal before the House is completely unworkable? Is there another intervention coming from the west to save some of those FIFO workers from their jobs? Is it disappointing that Labor's proposed reforms are not workable for business in their current state and do not fix productivity? We've heard that not only are these proposed reforms unworkable; some stakeholders are even going as far as to say that these reforms are worse than the current legislation—worse than 26-year-old laws that we all agree are broken. That's saying something. In a further blow to industry groups and business, they've been providing feedback to the minister on these reforms—indeed, the minister has been spruiking just how much engagement he has been undertaking—but none of their most significant contributions have been included in these reforms, to the point of Labor now producing something absolutely unworkable for Australian businesses. This is in stark contrast to the minister's message claiming that his reforms are balanced and 'a demonstrable gain for business and the environment'; that was his claim. If business and investors are turned away or if applications take too long to approve, jobs are foregone and lost, and it's the green light for investment to go offshore. This current proposal does not work for Australia's best interests. It does not encourage investment and it is a bill that falls short. We have significant issues with the Environmental Protection Authority, the EPA. The Graeme Samuel review recommendations did not include an EPA as a baseline. In fact, he recommended that a commissioner be appointed and that it be limited to compliance, assurance and audit—which means assessments and approvals should absolutely not be part of the EPA. Labor has absolutely overreached here, all because of the Prime Minister's 2022 election promise committing to a federal EPA. It's imperative that assessments remain in the department, and, as per the Samuel review, as per our Westminster system, decision-making and approvals must remain with the minister. The coalition also has significant concerns pertaining to the appointment and functions of the CEO of this proposed authority. The minister cannot answer how many new employees the authority will have, after saying at the National Press Club that he's not fan of inflated bureaucracy. The EPA CEO must have a binding statement of expectations and must report to the minister, and there must be parameters within those expectations around dismissal by the minister for failure to comply and for underperformance. Really? No key performance indicators for the CEO of the EPA? As it stands, the EPA's CEO can only be dismissed by the Governor-General, and there is no requirement for a binding statement of expectations. The fact that Labor has not firmly legislated a formal requirement for a statement of expectations and that the CEO is not accountable to the minister is another massive red flag. Let's talk about some of the other red flags, because we all know how much Labor loves a red flag. We've seen time and again the unnecessary duplication within this legislation. You cannot go past the scope 1 and 2 emissions reporting duplication. I thought the whole purpose of this government and its environmental reforms was to reduce red and green tape, not to add to it. That's exactly what's happening here. Remember, I said there were 5,000 new regulations, and here are some more coming at you. Emissions reporting is currently already dealt with in the safeguard mechanism legislation, and rightly so, because climate and emissions belong within climate and energy legislation, not environmental legislation. This duplication is completely unnecessary, and it's got to go. Including these parameters within the proposal opens up a whole new can of worms in the legal sphere. It opens the door to severe legal action and consequences for organisations, for governments and for jobs. It risks additional conditions and parameters for proponents to adhere to on their projects. Ultimately, it duplicates the role of the climate change and energy minister. More process and more time equal fewer jobs. We've already seen that under this government. Business doesn't want the duplication. It doesn't want the unnecessary red and green tape thrust upon it, especially when it's something that businesses already report on in a different piece of legislation. Throughout this legislation, there are 37 different definitions of unacceptable impacts—37. I thought we were supposed to be cutting red tape, not covering proponents in it. With these 37 definitions, it's guaranteed that almost no projects will be approved. What does that mean for this government's housing targets? Have they actually thought all of this through? What about Minister Bowen's reckless renewables-only plan? Say goodbye to your wind turbines and solar farms. What we need to see is one overarching definition of unacceptable impacts, with the rest removed and regulated under the minister's environmental standards. Let's move to Minister Watt's 'nature positive' rebrand. That's another concern. We know Minister Plibersek's 'nature positive' laws and how well they were received by everyone. They were reported as 'friendless'—not one friend in the stakeholder realm. The minister has chosen to go with 'net gain' instead this time, taking out 'nature positive' and putting in 'net gain'—same old definition, new name. How is that for this government's transparency? The definition of 'net gain' absolutely needs greater clarity, with guardrails in place to ensure certainty for industry and certainty for the environment. In their current form, the definitions of 'net gain' and 'unacceptable impacts' are completely unworkable. Our stakeholders across the spectrum of industry and environment agree. Again, this is in stark contrast to the minister's message claiming that his reforms are balanced and are a demonstrable gain for business and the environment. In terms of the environment, the coalition has a strong track record of protecting the environment and will take that lens when working on amendments to this reform—amendments that ensure the environment is protected. It is not that this Labor government has a good track record on protecting the environment. Two recent failures come to mind. Labor have failed South Australians, with a lack of support on the devastating algal bloom. Can I send a shout-out to Bart Butson, who's here in the House from South Australia. He's a fisher who I met on two trips down to South Australia, one with the Leader of the Opposition, to talk to the fishers down there about the government's flat-footed response on the South Australian algal bloom. While communities were crying out, while fishermen didn't have any work and while their environment was being decimated, the federal and state governments—both under Labor—ignored the community. Labor have failed Australians with another native species extinction. That's the next fail. The latest victim of this government is the Christmas Island shrew, which is now listed as Australia's 39th extinction, as declared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Australia leads the world—it's not a good thing—in mammal extinctions and ranks second for loss of biodiversity. After more than three years in government, what a monumental failure. Shame on this government, especially as the minister spruiked no extinctions in his speech just last week. Coming back to environmental failings on this bill, the bill refers to 'a threat abatement plan'. Instead, they should be referred to in the plural, as threat abatement plans. That could be a change. That could be an amendment to this bill. This bill requires so many amendments, even from Labor's own activist group in its caucus. They want amendments to this bill, as was reported just after question time today. But, as I said, this bill is unworkable, and there are so many issues that need to be addressed in order for this reform to proceed. This reform consists of seven individual bills and is nearly 1,500 pages long. Stakeholders have said they need time to go through this very large, very important piece of legislation that impacts every Australian—as does any effective member of parliament. Thinking that this will be a done deal when only giving 3½ weeks to read it is wishful thinking from this minister. To comb through this legislation would take around 40 hours from the front to the back—and 60 hours to read through the explanatory memorandum. Then you have to consult, provide feedback, get lawyers involved and understand how the new legislation interacts with the current legislation. This is a process that—if the minister wants this done effectively—cannot be rushed. It should not be rushed. Minister Watt always said this process would take 12 to 18 months to get done. Now it's time to give the coalition and stakeholders the time to carefully go through this legislation and be constructive and critical. It's too important to get wrong. I absolutely support an inquiry in the other place and I welcome engagement with the government to work through the current failings of this legislation. My door is open, as it always has been—since the start of these good-faith negotiations that we entered into with the government. We look forward to working with the government on these amendments, because we must ensure our environment and productivity do not continue to go backwards. I thank those with whom I've met and engaged with from industry and from environmental stakeholders, and I welcome their continued conversations. Similarly, thank you to my parliamentary colleagues for their engagement. I look forward to continuing to work with you through our partyroom processes as we proceed through this bill. Australians need these reforms to work for them and for the environment. So, when we say the government is again rushing through complex, untested legislation, we absolutely mean it. They've had three years now, and they are fast-tracking reform in three months, drip feeding limited details along the way, which is unhelpful for everyone. Not only has the drip fed approach been unhelpful; so too is the detail within the legislation—completely and utterly unhelpful. Industry and environmental groups can back this up. The Business Council of Australia has been flying the flag for its members and advocating fair and balanced reform. Chief executive Bran Black said, 'Business still has many concerns that need addressing if we want the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act system to support growing the economy.' Labor has taken more than three years, with two different ministers, to deliver completely unworkable parameters that would send industry, jobs and livelihoods backwards. Alarm bells should be ringing for Australians, and Australians should, rightly, be concerned that Labor's proposed environmental law reform would hold back the growth that Australia needs and that Australians deserve. Even more concerning is the thought of Labor doing a deal with the Greens to pass these laws. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Australians should be scared if the Labor Party enters into an agreement with the Greens on these reforms. The Greens wants all coal and gas fields prohibited. If Labor and the Greens join forces, Australians will be locked into a deteriorating economy with no future prosperity. This legislation in its current form will put billions of dollars of investment and thousands of Australian jobs at risk. Instead of speeding up decisions, they're creating a system that will stop projects dead in their tracks. We need certainty, we need to be able to unlock faster approvals for resources and we need to unlock more homes. Currently, under Labor, more than 26,000 homes are waiting for approval under the EPBC Act. But that's just what we're hearing from those opposite. Industry estimates suggest that the figure could be well over 40,000 homes. Meanwhile, house prices are going through the roof and young people can't afford to get into a home. We simply cannot continue to operate with the legislation in its current form, and we cannot wrap industry up in additional red and green tape. The coalition remains committed to achieving a balanced outcome for jobs, for productivity and for the environment. This legislation put forward is worse than the current outdated laws—imagine, those laws that were introduced under Robert Hill in 2001! These laws that the Labor Party are putting forward could be worse. Labor has given us no choice but not to support this bill. It does not deliver a balanced outcome to protect the environment, to improve productivity and to provide certainty for job-creating industries. The coalition cannot support this bill and the related bills in the form that they are currently in. I look forward to hearing all of the contributions of members across the House, particularly on the coalition side, when they outline the holes that are in this bill and put the spotlight on Labor for their failures. 16:15 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong For too long, environmental protection has been pulled between competing politics. We had a perfect illustration just then from the contribution by the shadow environment minister, the member for Moncrieff. She says she wants more environmental protection in our law, yet she stood there for 20 minutes attacking every measure to achieve it. She says reform is long overdue but then also says that this bill is rushed. She said that she wants to protect the environment, but when this bill and the related bills first came out she then wanted to split the bills so that environmental protection would be kicked down the road. Australians are tired of this pointscoring when it comes to environment and climate policy. They're sick of it. They want progress. At the last two elections, they voted for progress on climate and the environment, and this bill, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, represents the most significant reform in a generation. It gives us a chance, for the first time in 25 years, to rewrite some laws that are, quite frankly, completely busted and to finally deliver a system that protects what's left of our environment but also helps us restore what has been lost for the very first time. We've all seen what happens when the environment and climate become a political football. Unbelievably, we're going through it all again right now—well, those opposite are. Our plans are clear, and our determination to deliver this long-overdue reform stands. We've seen inaction, and turning this into a political football has led to delay and division. Australians are sick of it, because what it also leads to is a massive decline in our environment and biodiversity, and that's what we need to stop. We've been living through this for 20 years, and this bill seeks to end it. Protecting the environment has always been part of Labor's DNA. It's Labor governments that care for and protect our environment, be it with Whitlam's creation of many of our national parks, Hawke saving the Franklin, Keating protecting the Daintree and Kakadu, Rudd and Gillard making climate policy central to a modern federal government, or, of course, the Albanese Labor government cementing the energy transition and emissions reduction policy that those before it couldn't, expanding our marine parks and protecting our biodiversity. The environment and climate are core Labor business because we understand something fundamental: a healthy environment is not the enemy of prosperity and jobs; it's the foundation of them. This bill builds on years and years of advocacy from the environment movement but also, importantly, Labor's environment movement. I'm proud to be the New South Wales patron of LEAN, the Labor Environment Action Network. I can tell the House that this policy, to reform our environmental laws, started from LEAN, from the ground up, from community members right across the country, way back in 2016. They're people like Felicity Wade, David Tierney, Erin Watt, Ella Factor, David Mason, Louise Crawford, Janaline Oh and all the rank and file members of the Labor movement, like John Gain and Penny Pedersen and scores more, who drove across branches, across the country, over 500 branches, including all the branches in Bennelong: Eastwood, Gladesville, Ryde, Macquarie, Epping, Lane Cove, Hunters Hill and Willoughby Castlecrag—all branches who've passed motions to get this policy to where it is today, who've pushed this policy from the ground up, making the Shorten-led federal Labor opposition commit to this in 2018 and then the Albanese opposition commit to this in 2022, and then again the Albanese government commit to it at the 2025 election. These laws are a perfect example of community led, ground up policy development, that sets Labor apart from all others in this place—from the community, for the community. LEAN pushed for this reform. LEAN supported people like me to get into this place to vote for this bill. I will be voting for this bill, because we desperately need reform. Our current environmental laws are just broken. Faults were identified in these laws shortly after they came into force in 1999, when the former member for Bennelong was Prime Minister of this country. Of reviews there have been more than one, but of course the latest, on which we've heard—commissioned by the current Leader of the Opposition when she was environment minister—made the case for urgent reform. This bill is based on the foundation of the Samuel review, and the Samuel review found that the laws were outdated, fragmented and failing to stop environmental decline. These laws that we currently have are not working for the environment, they're not working for communities and they're not working for business. You only need to look around to see that that's true. Species are under threat. Ecosystems are under strain. Housing and renewable energy projects are delayed, year after year, because of the inefficiencies under the current law. In Graeme Samuel's own words, these reforms had a 'broad consensus'. Nearly every stakeholder he consulted—scores of them—supported this, bar one hold-out. From business groups to environment groups, they all supported the findings of his review—bar one. Australians are tired of hearing that it's either one or the other—that, if you protect the environment, it's at the cost of business, or that, if you're pro business, it's at the cost of the environment. That's a false choice. This bill—and this package of bills—represents core Labor values, in that we believe we can protect the environment and also provide certainty for business. As former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry put it, with 'glistening ambition', Australia can 'build an efficient, jobs-rich', 'low-emissions nature-rich economy', with the passage of these bills. That's the future this bill can help deliver, if we work together to get it right. I'll go back to Graeme Samuel's words again, because I find that his involvement in this debate most recently has been incredibly powerful. Not only did he do all that work, back in 2020, setting up this review, but, if you've seen some of the interviews he's given and his contributions very recently, he has reminded us of why this parliament needs to stop playing games with environmental protection. He said: What we are talking about here is the future of nature for our children, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He called on every side of politics to set aside grievances and to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. These are good reforms. These laws are based on the Samuel review commissioned by the opposition, and his words are powerful. They're a message for all of us, because, in front of us here in the House, and soon in the Senate, we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to restore trust in this parliament to do good things about the environment, to fix a very clear problem. We tried to do this last term, and we hit a roadblock—as was the flavour of the Senate in the last term. Please, let's not do this again. Let's not do this again, because our environment cannot wait another five years, 10 years or 25 years for this law to change. We can make approvals faster and clearer and fairer while continuing to protect our environment with important concepts like net gain, not only protecting our environment but making it better. This bill represents the chance for a massive leap forward on environmental protection and on certainty for business. Australians want to see us work together to deliver it. I did two really big street stalls recently. We had our petition out there for the creation of an environmental protection agency, and this was overwhelmingly the feedback that I received from locals at Lane Cove, at their rotary fair, and also at Eastwood, at the Granny Smith Festival. Scores of people were coming up. We would raise this issue with them, and it was like, 'We've got to get this through; we have to get these reforms through.' This bill builds a modern, credible and accountable framework for environmental protection. Environmental Protection Australia will be created, independent, science based and empowered to enforce the law, ensuring its decisions are transparent and trustworthy. National environmental standards will set clear and consistent rules so decisions are fair and practicable. The net gain principle ensures that projects contribute to restoration, not just compensation, an incredibly important aspect of this bill—that we don't just preserve what we've got but contribute to getting back what we've lost. Stronger penalties will make sure environmental wrongdoing is never just the cost of business. If someone breaks the rules, they should cop massive fines. That's what this bill proposes. It's a disincentive for businesses to break the rules. Of course, First Nations participation will be embedded throughout the decision-making process, recognising the custodianship and traditional knowledge central to protection and environmental protection as well. These reforms can replace the current mess we've got now with focus, with clarity and with accountability. Right now and before us, we have the opportunity in this parliament to show that we can rise above division and deliver reform that's lasting. As the environment minister said at the National Press Club, it's now or never. We had a go at this in the last term, and we've recommitted to doing it again. I welcome that the minister has made this a priority, and I welcome that the government have brought this on to be debated and hopefully sorted by the end of the year. Our environment can't wait for us to continue to argue over this. Everyone agrees these reforms need to go through. Everyone does. These laws are based on the review that the opposition commissioned and handed down. The minister has made it very clear that he's willing to listen to all sides so that we can reach a consensus. Sure, it won't be perfect, and some will want to go more, to go harder, to bring more into this bill. But we also need to get it through. We also need to be faithful to our children and to our grandchildren and to their children, because this has just gone on for too long. This bill delivers the strongest environmental standards in a generation—an independent EPA; higher penalties for environmental wrongdoers and the power to actually enforce the law. The Australian people are asking us to deliver on the environment and to deliver on climate, not to continue to delay and to divide. They don't want another decade of fighting over this; they want progress. If this bill doesn't pass soon, our environment will keep going backwards. Renewable energy projects will continue to be delayed, and our biodiversity and environment will continue to be impacted upon by laws that simply are not fit for purpose. The time for politics on this is over. The time for partnership is now. It's just unacceptable for people in this place to say that they want stronger protection for the environment and then block a plan when it comes to parliament. Wanting environmental reform isn't enough. Delivery is all that matters. This parliament simply must deliver these changes, because this bill does what the experts, businesses and communities have told us we need to do. They want things better for the environment, better for business and better for our community, and this bill delivers on all three of those measures. This is our moment to prove that this parliament can deliver, that we can work together and, importantly, that we can listen to the Australian people who re-elected an Albanese Labor government to deliver these reforms. That's two mandates received to deliver an independent environmental protection agency, two mandates delivered to ensure that our environment doesn't continue to degrade and two mandates for us to deliver this bill, to rise to the challenge and to get this done. As Graeme Samuel said, this is about the future of nature for our children and our grandchildren. That's the legacy we have the chance to leave here, and I call on all sides of this place to work together over the coming weeks, nut out a solution through the House and through the Senate, and get these reforms through. BUSINESS 44 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 44 16:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring today: (1) in the House: (a) standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) being suspended for the sitting; and (b) at 8 pm, notwithstanding standing order 31, the adjournment debate being interrupted and government business having priority until: (i) business concludes, if earlier than 10 pm; or (ii) 10 pm; or (iii) a later time specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm;   .at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 5 November at 9 am; (2) today in the Federation Chamber, government business being given priority until the Federation Chamber adjourns at approximately 9.30 pm; (3) the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 being debated in cognate with government business orders of the day Nos. 5 to 10; and (4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. To explain to the House what all of that procedure means, firstly, the 6.30 rule still applies, so after 6.30 pm people who are not expecting to speak or not rostered on in the House certainly won't be required for divisions or for quorum calls after 6.30 pm. Secondly, in this House, if you are rostered to speak on the adjournment debate, the adjournment speeches will still go ahead, but at 8 pm the House will not adjourn. The House will return to government business and continue on government business until 10 pm. The only circumstance where a minister might ask for it to go longer than 10 pm is if we've got a final speaker and they've got a few minutes left in their speech. Other than that, it would be a 10 pm cut-off, unless we end up with fewer speakers. Thirdly, the Federation Chamber would also be continuing until 9.30 pm tonight, and the final thing is, instead of debating the seven bills separately, we would have the cognate debate that was circulated earlier today with respect to the environment legislation. 16:33 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell The coalition supports working on cup day—good idea, a very Australian principle. We'll all share the productivity gains we can make here in parliament. However, the government has constructed this motion with the cognate debate, which we do not support. We think inherently that the 1,500-page bill, or the five bills, should be debated separately for good reason—policy reasons—and, for a proper consideration in detail process, we will oppose this motion on that point only. But the rest of the arrangements are agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 84 AYES Abdo, B. J. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gregg, M. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. White, R. P. Wilkie, A. D. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 45 NOES Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. (Teller) Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.

 BILLS 46 BILLS Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025 46

Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025

National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025

Environment Information Australia Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025

Second Reading 46 16:42 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The motion that's just passed the House is emblematic of this government's approach to a lack of scrutiny—that same lack of scrutiny that we saw in this House in relation to the Freedom of Information Bill, where the government did not want that debate to be held in this chamber and moved it off to the Federation Chamber. It is the same sort of lack of transparency that this government is becoming renowned for. Of course, I am referring to the fact that the government refuses to debate other bills, like the Crimes Act— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member for Fisher! We're not talking about the general debate. We're on the bill now. You've been given the call about the second reading on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, so— Mr WALLACE 265967 Well, I am going to get to the substantive matters, Mr Speaker. I am only a minute and 10 seconds into my speech. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, I know, but— Mr WALLACE 265967 But it goes to the point that this government continues— The SPEAKER 53517 Just pause. Resume your seat. I'm just saying: if you're going to give a general debate, make it relevant to the bill. Don't just go and talk about other bills or other topics or other things. Just be nuanced and make it relevant to the bill, not just a general slash and burn on a whole range of topics. Just make your comments relevant to the bill, and you'll be fine and within the standing orders. Mr WALLACE 265967 Thank you, Mr Speaker. Australians, by their very nature, want to protect the environment. I think almost everybody in this place would agree. But what we've seen, particularly over the last 15 to 20 years, is that the current law, the EPBC Act, is deficient in many respects. I was being specifically relevant to these bills before the House, all seven of them. Effectively, what this government is seeking to do is truncate debate on all seven of these bills, because this government wants to shut down debate. It doesn't want to see its legislative agenda being scrutinised a moment longer than it possibly has to, and that's why this government continues to play procedural games and to shut the opposition down at the first opportunity, despite them consistently having opposed that sort of stuff when they were in opposition. The coalition government introduced legislation when the current leader of the opposition was the Minister for the Environment. She commissioned Professor Graeme Samuel to undertake a review of the EPBC Act. The coalition government introduced legislation to undertake reforms, including streamlining pathways, but that was blocked by Labor at the time. But, true to form, it's now putting this sort of stuff back into this bill. When Minister Plibersek was the environment minister, she tried to introduce reforms in the last parliament. However, they were too left wing for Labor, which is why the Western Australian premier stepped in and contacted the Prime Minister. Just like that, overnight, the bills were stopped. Labor have promised at two elections to deliver an environmental protection agency. After four years, they've not been able to deliver on that promise. Labor have now introduced proposed reforms in the chamber. However, in trying to ram them through, the bills have already been sent to a Senate inquiry, reporting back on 24 March 2026. I know that the people in the gallery right now, and anybody who might be watching or listening to this transmission, would be wondering: 'Hang on a minute. These bills, all seven of them, have been referred to a Senate inquiry. Why are we talking about them now on the floor of the House of Representatives?' And that would be a pretty reasonable question to ask because the whole idea of the Senate inquiry is to look in detail at the merits of these bills, specifically drilling down into detail on their provisions. Yet here we are today, in early November. The Senate inquiry into the bill is not due to come back until 24 March 2026. How can it be that this chamber can have a meaningful debate without the scrutiny of these bills? How can that be? If anybody can explain that to me, I'm all ears. But this is emblematic of the way that this government operates—to ram legislation through at any cost. And we've seen that. We've seen it, just in the last couple of weeks, in the national security legislation that I've had the carriage of. Ram it through; don't worry about it. The fact that there is a Senate inquiry on foot that hasn't even released a report? Don't worry about that; let's just get the bill through. That is what Australians are dealing with—an arrogant government with a supermajority. That's what happens when a government gets a supermajority and believes that it is beyond reproach and beyond being accountable to the Australian people. The coalition respects the outcome of the election, but what we are seeing is that this government is, increasingly, day in and day out, ramming through legislation in this place without proper scrutiny and without giving the coalition the opportunity to be heard and to properly scrutinise what is, in effect, 1,500 pages of legislation and explanatory memoranda. This bill was alerted to the coalition last Thursday, not nine years ago. This bill was provided to the coalition last Thursday. It's 1,500 pages. Just totally disregard the fact that there is a Senate inquiry on foot at the moment. The government says: 'Let's just ram this through. To hell with the opposition. To hell with the Australian people.' The minister is looking to do a deal with either the coalition or the Greens in relation to these bills by calling back the bills from the Senate inquiry process to pass the legislation by the end of this year. They want this through the parliament by the end of this year. In their current form, the bills do not provide an improvement for business, and the coalition cannot support them as is. The Business Council of Australia, as the key public commentator to date, has been clear. And they've said that, without significant changes to this bill, we risk embedding a system that's even slower, more complex and lacking in the clarity and certainty needed for investment. So third-party stakeholders are saying that these bills are problematic. They're saying that these bills will create a whole new heap of bureaucracy which is even worse than what we've currently got. I want to just stop and pause for a moment, because I want to tell a salient story about a road project in my electorate—in Caloundra, in the seat of Fisher. This is a project that was going to be—emphasis on 'going to be'—funded by all three tiers of government. It wasn't a big road project, like some of the projects that we get involved with at a federal level. It was a relatively modest project. If I remember correctly, it was certainly under $100 million, which, for a road project, is a modest project from the federal perspective, at least. When we were in government, we committed funds for this road project. It wasn't a lot of money. If I remember correctly, it was about $7 million. The rest was going to be paid for by the Queensland state government and the local government. Now, everything was going along quite well until we lost the election in 2022, and then the infrastructure minister decided to do her infrastructure review. Guess what? She cut the funding for this road project, which would have provided an alternative access into Caloundra, which was greatly needed by the people of the Sunshine Coast because that area around Caloundra, around the corner of Caloundra Road and Mickleham Way, is a car park at the best of times. This project would have given an alternative road into Caloundra. It would have been great. Unfortunately, the infrastructure minister pulled the $7 million from federal funding, which meant that the state and local governments had to foot the bill for the balance. And they did. They do. That's what they're going to do. But, unfortunately, some genius in the Sunshine Coast Council referred the project to the federal environment minister under the EPBC Act. This was about two or three years ago now. And that's where it's gone to die. That project is now stalled under the current EPBC Act; it has literally stalled within the federal department of the environment. It's interesting to hear the Business Council of Australia say these bills will create a legislative environment which will be even worse than that which we currently have. At home, it's five minutes to four—it's called 'No daylight savings', for those of you who don't know; Queensland doesn't have daylight savings, so it's five minutes to four back home. There'll be mums and dads picking up kids from school, and they will be in gridlocked traffic on Caloundra Road and Nicklin Way. My message to them is: if you think things are bad now under the current EPBC laws, with the traffic on the Sunshine Coast, the Business Council of Australia is saying that if these bills are passed things are only going to get worse. The times for approvals are only going to get worse. As the Sunshine Coast moves to 2032, being one of the major host cities of the 2032 Olympic Games, the Sunshine Coast is grinding to a halt because of the amount of people who are moving there. And Sunshine Coast locals will have this Labor government to blame because of their incessant desire to drag things down with more red and green tape. And for what? What will be the appreciable benefits? The coalition says there will need to be substantial amendments in relation to these bills. The deep concern is that the bills are more pro-green than pro-industry. There is enough here for Labor to do a deal with the Greens, and that should worry every Australian. These bills will put an unacceptable handbrake on the Australian economy; the government's pretty good at doing that already, but these bills will only amplify the problem we are currently experiencing. 16:57 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise in strong support of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six associated bills. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix laws that are failing the environment, our economy and our communities. These bills are about balance and progress—protecting the natural heritage that defines us as Australians while enabling the clean energy industries, homes and infrastructure our nation desperately needs. The truth is simple: the environment and the economy are not at odds. If we get this right, they grow together—cleaner energy, stronger regions, more jobs and a healthier planet. Labor has always been the party of the environment—as the member for Bennelong said, from saving the Franklin River and protecting the Daintree and Kakadu to building the world's largest network of marine parks and leading the national effort to tackle climate change. Today, Labor is leading once again, modernising our environmental laws to meet the urgency of the climate crisis and seize the opportunities of the clean energy transition. The current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not delivering. Professor Graeme Samuel's independent review said it plainly: our laws are failing the environment, business and the community. Five years after that review was handed to the then environment minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, the environment is still in decline and major projects still take too long to get approval. That's why these reforms matter. They're about ensuring our environmental protections actually protect and our approval system actually works. These bills deliver on the three pillars recommended by the Samuel review: stronger environmental protection and restoration; more efficient and robust project assessments; and greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. It's a balanced, pragmatic package—better for business, better for the environment and better for the Australian people. We can't build a future made in Australia on a foundation of environmental decline. Our unique species and landscapes, from Ningaloo to the Great Barrier Reef, are irreplaceable. This bill introduces national environmental standards, legally enforceable benchmarks setting out in plain language what must be protected and what cannot be lost. Those standards will cover matters of national environmental significance, offsets, First Nations engagement and data transparency, providing clarity for investors and certainty for communities. A key safeguard is the 'no regression' clause. Future governments cannot weaken these standards without improving environmental outcomes. That's an enduring legacy. This bill also defines unacceptable impacts, creating clear, up-front criteria for what simply cannot be approved, because some things, once destroyed, are gone forever. Protection statements will ensure that decision-makers know exactly what they must consider when assessing risk to threatened species and ecological communities, cutting ambiguity and strengthening protection. For those who break the rules, penalties will be tougher, linking fines to the value of any illegal gain so no-one can treat environmental harm as just another cost of doing business. If you damage our shared natural heritage, you will pay for it properly. Most importantly, this bill replaces the weak notion of 'no net loss' with a higher bar: net gain. Every approved project must leave the environment better than before. That's a fundamental shift from merely avoiding damage to actively delivering restoration. Through the new restoration contributions network, proponents can either deliver their own offsets or contribute to a national restoration fund that supports large-scale strategic recovery—less piecemeal rehabilitation and more genuine renewal. When we restore landscapes, we restore confidence. If we want to hit 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030, we need environmental laws that are strong and streamlined. Right now, too many renewable and critical minerals projects are stuck in duplication between Commonwealth and state systems. This bill fixes that, reducing duplication by accrediting state and territory systems that meet our new national standards and maintaining protection while cutting red tape. A new streamlined assessment pathway will fast-track quality proposals, reducing average assessment timeframes from 70 days to as little as 50 and saving the economy up to $7 billion a year, because time is money and delay is costing jobs, investment and progress towards our renewable targets. We'll also make bioregional planning a cornerstone of the system, mapping regions to identify both development zones and conservation zones. Projects in development zones can proceed with certainty about what's required. Those in conservation zones face a clear no. That gives industry clarity, gives communities confidence and gives ecosystems breathing space. Strategic assessments will complement this approach, allowing governments and proponents to plan across whole landscapes rather than project by project. This is smarter regulation—stronger at the environmental level and simpler at the project level. The bill also strengthens the National Interest Framework, creating a transparent, limited mechanism if the project is of demonstrable national interest, such as emergency infrastructure or essential renewable transmission, to proceed with published reasons and conditions. It also mandates emissions disclosure. Proponents must report their scope 1 and scope 2 emissions and show how they'll manage them, aligning environmental approvals with the safeguard mechanism and national climate goals. That means every major project must be part of the decarbonisation story, not an obstacle to it. Australia is in the midst of an energy transformation unlike anything since the industrial age. The global shift to renewables is not a choice between the environment and prosperity; it is prosperity. As of this month, our government has approved 111 renewable energy projects, generating enough electricity to power more than 13 million homes; 69 are already producing clean power, 15 provide grid-scale storage and 29 more, including four major hydrogen hubs, are building the backbone of a renewable energy superpower. In October, half of all electricity in the national grid came from renewable sources, the highest monthly share on record. Coal generation has fallen to 46 per cent, and renewable output is up by around 30 per cent since Labor came to government. That's progress, powered by the Capacity Investment Scheme, Rewiring the Nation, and the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. But, to keep that momentum, we need planning laws that move as quickly as our ambition. If we don't pass these reforms we'll slow down the renewable rollout, the transmission lines, windfarms and community batteries already cutting across regional Australia. This bill clears the path, with faster approvals, better coordination and stronger investor confidence to build here in Australia. It replaces an outdated system that too often said, 'No, because it's hard' with one that says, 'Yes, if it's responsible.' That distinction matters, because the climate crisis doesn't wait for paperwork. We need transmission lines that connect regions, solar farms that power industry, and wind and battery projects that stabilise the grid. The world is moving fast. Investors are voting with their capital. Communities are demanding action. Labor's reforms make sure Australia can lead, delivering renewable jobs, regional development and secure, affordable power to households and businesses. This bill gives the renewables sector the certainty it's been asking for: clear standards, faster time lines and integrity in decision-making. That's how we build confidence and momentum in the clean energy transition. Strong laws work only if Australians trust them. That's why this bill delivers the third pillar: accountability and transparency. It establishes the National Environmental Protection Agency, our first truly independent national environmental regulator. The EPA will consolidate regulatory functions, ensure compliance and enforcement, and have the power to issue environmental protection orders when harm is imminent. For the first time, Australia will have an independent watchdog to hold rule breakers to account and restore public confidence. The EPA won't duplicate state agencies; it will complement them, setting consistent national standards and ensuring that accredited processes live up to them. Alongside it, we'll establish Environment Information Australia, a statutory body to improve the quality and accessibility of environmental data, because we can't manage what we don't measure. High-quality data means better decisions for government, businesses and communities alike. It means transparent, state-of-the-environment reporting and an end to the data gaps that have undermined trust. Together, the EPA and EIA will make our environmental system not only stronger but smarter. The bill also deepens First Nations involvement in decision-making, embedding the Indigenous Advisory Committee at the heart of environmental governance. It requires consultation with First Nations peoples in developing standards and ensures that cultural knowledge informs species listing and conservation planning, because caring for country has always been about partnership—learning from the world's oldest continuous culture to protect Australia's oldest living landscapes. These reforms also provide certainty for industry, reducing duplication, speeding up approvals and creating a level playing field that rewards responsible operators. When the rules are clear and consistent, investment follows. That means more renewable projects, more local manufacturing and more jobs, particularly in regional Australia. It means faster delivery of housing and infrastructure projects that communities desperately need. And it means that businesses can plan with confidence, knowing that their proposals will be assessed on transparent criteria, not politics or delay. Environmental groups support this reform, because it strengthens protection. Industry supports it, because it streamlines approvals. That's the definition of balance, and it's exactly what this parliament should deliver. We've talked about reform for a decade. We've had review after review, report after report, while our natural environment keeps declining and the approvals pipeline keeps clogging. Every day we delay, another threatened species edges closer to extinction and another renewable project that could lower bills and emissions sits waiting. The Samuel review laid out the blueprint. This bill delivers it. Now the choice belongs to this parliament: will we act in the national interest or let another five years pass while our laws fail both nature and the economy? I say to the opposition: you were handed the Samuel review five years ago and did nothing. Now is your chance to fix what you broke. Will you really vote against the faster approvals that industry has been calling for and against a system that cuts red tape and boosts productivity? And, to the Greens, will you oppose stronger standards, tougher penalties and the new EPA you've long demanded just to make a political point? Australians are tired of ideological gridlock. They want progress, not pointscoring. They want us to get on with it. Our door is open to anyone from any party who wants to protect the environment and deliver the projects Australia needs. These reforms will unlock billions in clean energy investment, much of it flowing into regional communities. They fast-track transmission projects under Rewiring the Nation, create skilled jobs for electricians, engineers and apprentices, and open new opportunities for regional manufacturing through Future Made in Australia. They'll ensure environmental approvals support housing construction and renewable supply chains, the twin foundations of sustainable growth. They'll restore confidence in a system that too often divided Australians between environmental protection and economic development. In truth, those goals were never in conflict. Healthy landscapes sustain agriculture, tourism and regional economies. Clean energy underpins competitiveness and cost-of-living relief. This bill unites these priorities, protecting what makes Australia special while powering what makes Australia strong. These reforms are about responsibility to future generations and the country we love. My electorate, like many others, is home to people who want practical action on climate and the environment, not slogans. They want to know that the wind farms on our horizon, the solar panels on our roofs and the nature reserves in our suburbs all form part of a coherent national plan. They want a government that can walk and chew gum, protecting the bush and building the future at the same time. That's what this bill does. It brings together environmental integrity, economic growth and climate responsibility into one clear framework. It restores trust that environmental decisions will be made on evidence, not ideology, and ensures that we decarbonise and also regenerate. Australia's environment is one of our greatest national assets. It deserves laws that are modern, effective and capable of meeting the challenges this century. This bill strengthens protections, streamlines approvals and ensures accountability, all while accelerating the clean energy transformation. We can get this done to deliver on what the Australian people sent us here to do. Every day we delay, our environment degrades further, and every day we delay is one we could be building the renewable energy and housing our future demands. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for 'Goldsteen'. 17:12 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein 'Goldstine'. As the member for Goldstein, every time we mention the word 'Goldstein', we're honouring the legacy of the suffragette Vida Goldstein, and that's the basis on which I always correct members. When you think about Australian political history, you have a limited number of Australian political figures who are honoured by the name of electorates, and that includes one of Australia's greatest suffragettes. Apart from when I was doing research for my first speech, where I found an article where she specifically explained how to pronounce her name, and in both of the books that have been published in recent years, You Daughters of Freedom and Vida, where it was explicitly explained how to pronounce her name correctly, it's important to get right. Australians simply want to make sure we have stewardship of our natural environment. They want a sense of protection and balance to conserve the environment for future generations while building the jobs and economic opportunity for Australians to be able to go on and live successful lives. We are blessed with bounty. We are blessed with opportunity. It's our responsibility to harness that in a way that continues to grow out the economic potential for our nation and for all. To do so requires having a sense of balance in our laws so that we seek to do it in a way that is measured and proportionate and protects our environment, powers our country and propels us forward to be part of contributing to a global economy and to provide the affluence and improvement in standards of living that Australians reasonably expect to enjoy. Lessons of history show that there is nothing that will corrode the health and wellbeing of the environment more than when people have declining standards of living. When they do, particularly in situations of poverty, they turn to the environment as the point at which they try to improve them. Stewardship is understanding that prosperity and environmental conservation can be in opposition, or they can be intrinsically linked. Good nations design laws that intrinsically link the potential of economic opportunity with stewardship so that we're able to hand down to future generations a better environment than we inherited ourselves. There is one problem with our current environmental framework—multiple problems, in fact. The current laws are slow, cumbersome and expensive. When I say they're expensive, it's not because they cost businesses money. Businesses obviously have an obligation to spend the money necessary to preserve and protect our environment. They're slow and expensive because they delay the potential for investment in our environment in order to harness its bounty and its potential. And it's not just in dollars; it's also in time. It can take decades for mining projects, which we desperately need to start developing now, to come to the table. We have duplicative and overly cumbersome regulation which often replicates activities of state and federal governments for largely little benefit. And, of course, it's slow, and there are huge costs involved. What we end up having is a huge deadweight loss to our economy. It makes us less competitive in the global market and we all pay the price through declining living standards because we're not getting the investment capital we need in an efficient way to grow the future of our economy. So there are plenty of reasons to reform the EPBC Act. That's not in question. We just want it to be done in a balanced and measured way. One of the problems we've got right now is that the government is seeking to ram legislation through and bully the parliament into compliance. As I've said so many times before, the Prime Minister has come back from his visits overseas and wants to treat this parliament like it is the National People's Congress, where nobody dare ask questions. In fact, he shut down question time when I got up to ask a question in question time today—perhaps legitimately, because it went to some very difficult and uncomfortable truths at the dark heart of this Labor government, but we'll leave that to the side. A reality we have is that critical minerals projects, which are desperately needed, could now be 15 to 20 years away simply because this government hasn't got the legislative framework right. The same is true with lots of other mining projects, which we use to grow the bounty and wealth of our nation so that we can afford things like our health system and our education system and so that Australians can get jobs so they can afford to buy their own home and save for their retirement. It's enormously important. In addition, we have environmental laws which are weaponised by people who have no interest in advancing environmental causes. They seek to corrode and attack economic progress. I'm reminded of the recent example of the Environmental Defenders Office. In the Senate there's recently been an inquiry looking at different components of climate misinformation and disinformation. We can debate the relative merits of that inquiry, but I seek not to indulge in that in the context of this legislation. But it never ceases to amaze me that the Greens called for an inquiry into climate misinformation and disinformation, when the most obvious example we have had in this nation's history—and the EPBC Act has been an enabler of this—is the Environmental Defenders Office taking Santos to court. They literally made up Indigenous traditions that didn't exist—even local Indigenous people acknowledged they didn't exist—as a basis to weaponise and shut down gas projects. It is extraordinary that the law would enable them to deceive the public, to lie to the public through a government-funded entity, to try and stop a project on not dubious but deceptive grounds, harming both Indigenous communities and the economic progress of the nation. I think that one case alone has demonstrated that the EPBC Act needs some pretty significant reform, but it has to be done from a position of integrity, trust and balance. It is simply impossible for any member at this point, with the way the government is trying to bully and ram this legislation through the parliament, to have actually gone through it and done the proper work necessary to pass it. We can have our debates about what should be included or not included—I fully respect the fact there will be a diversity of views across the crossbenches, the members of government and the opposition. But with what they essentially tabled in the last week, we now have 1,500 pages of legislation with the explanatory memorandum. How on earth is anybody supposed to understand what the practical consequences are for small businesses, the flow-on consequences for large projects and mining? I see the member to my left—what about the impact it's going to have on farmers and her community? How is she supposed to be able to have that conversation and do a proper consultation? This is what this parliament is being asked to vote on. Meanwhile, we have a process in the Senate which is designed to actually review the laws and give the Australian people—you know them, the people we're supposed to be representing—some input into the process and for them to highlight some of the deficiencies in these laws, which is quite important. I heard the member for Moore before, celebrating the legislation, saying how important it was and how we've just got to smash it through, but seeming completely indifferent to the fact that we need to have a conversation with the Australian people about the consequences. No matter how arrogant a government may be at any given time, every government makes mistakes—in legislative drafting, in unintended consequences, and where they design laws which have a flow-on effect that was not fully appreciated. I don't think for one second that when the original Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was designed anybody thought, 'I know what's going to happen; the Environmental Defender's Office, which the current Albanese government funds, is going to use that act to take action against a gas project, using a dishonest, deceptive and lying campaign on the basis of a mythical, invented, Aboriginal songlines campaign, and use that to take it all the way up to the Federal Court.' I don't think anybody thought that. It's kind of why you have to review legislation and go through the proper process. There will be a record about how everybody voted on this bill, but make no mistake: to vote for 1,500 pages of legislation—which I'm willing to bet to a tee that any single member on the government benches has not read, and certainly has not consulted their community. They certainly don't understand the consequences outside of the three-page talking points, no doubt issued by the whip. There has to be a sobriety with this legislation and what it is we need to do. So when the Albanese government continues to treat this House of Representatives and this parliament like the National People's Congress, and thinks we're all just a bunch of applauding eunuchs rather than standing up, speaking out, scrutinising legislation, asking questions, challenging legislation and debating legislation, we know we have a problem. How about we have this Senate inquiry? How about we have input from the Australian people? How about we have input from groups like the Business Council, as some members have raised? How about we have input from farmers groups? How about we have input from industry associations? How about we have input from environmental groups too? Well-designed laws will involve consultation. Just because people have input, doesn't mean we're guaranteed to listen to it—or include it, I should say more correctly—but people should be able to have a say in their democracy. How about we have a bit of input in the process? But we haven't seen that. Instead, what we've seen is a bullying approach by this government towards this House of Representatives. Some of us aren't trained eunuchs. Some of us aren't just going to applaud the Prime Minister along. Some of us are going to stand up and speak out about it, because there are important issues that are on the table. From looking at the ministerial discretion that the minister wants in this legislation—and it's pretty wide ministerial discretion, which is raising concerns across the chamber about what the minister will be empowered to do and what the minister will not be empowered to do—to the capacity for this whole process to duplicate what happens in state as well as federal regulation. Instead of streamlining and speeding up the process of environmental regulation, it could have the reverse effect, where it actually increases the burden, the costs and the compliance. Remember, this isn't for some sort of mystical benefit, except for people whose sole purpose is to be paid to process paperwork. Then, of course, there are other important issues, like the extent of offset arrangements that have been established under the legislation to make sure that we conserve the environment, but in a way that encourages and incentivises project development, because in the end that's what we should want as a country. It doesn't really matter how we design the law; we have to make sure that we're stewarding the environment to a better future, but it has to be through acknowledging that we have to manage our challenges for the environment as well. Those groups haven't had their say. So far, they're saying this legislation's a dud. They're saying it's a dud because it actually makes the problems worse, and stakeholders who have had the chance to speak up in the public square are calling out the Albanese government for its ramrod approach. The question is why members of the government feel so fixated on and obsessed with wanting to override rational conversation in this legislation. You can see it, going back to question time, where all the ministers get up and praise their Prime Minister. He's obviously got a dirt file that has something on all of them, because there's no other basis that anybody would get up and be so sycophantic. When it comes down to it, the reality is that backbenchers, particularly, have a responsibility to ask basic questions of ministers and, of course, of the legislation they put forward. My recommendations to the minister are to fix the laws, listen to the public, take input and views, and allow a reasonable, proportionate amount of time for 1,500 pages of legislation and explanatory memoranda to be properly considered. If you don't, and if the minister gets this wrong, the consequences for the environment could be profound, the consequences for economic development for Australia could be profound and the consequences for Indigenous communities could be profound. But, at the moment, all those calls are falling on deaf ears. That is another emblematic example of the arrogance of the Albanese government and how it has slowly been manifesting since about 3 May, where you see the Prime Minister fly in, as obliged, if he occasionally has to appear before the parliament, to answer at least to the people who are elected by the Australian people. He certainly does it very dismissively, particularly when it's not on topics he likes. More importantly, he gets up with his boastfulness and arrogance and throws barbs and sharp lines, which, I've no doubt, make him feel chipper and good in the process, but that isn't necessarily improving the governance of this nation. We all face choices. The choice before the parliament right now is: Do we pass this legislation, or do we review it and improve it? Do we make sure that we get the balance right? Do we make sure that we create the legislation this country so desperately needs, so that environmental regulation can steward the environment, and empower the economy and propel it forward to the future? Or do we continue to accept the arrogance and indulgence of this government and vote for legislation, ram it through, without any concern for the consequences of its impact—which could very much lead to disastrous consequences for the people of Australia? 17:27 Ms TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel I'll just take a moment to get over that, before I go into my speech, because I'm just so shocked by the previous speaker's comments. I'd like to quote from Graeme Samuel, when he was asked recently about this review—oh, you're not going to listen to this? Goodbye! Maybe later—because he says: 'I can't understand why there's opposition from the coalition. It doesn't make sense, particularly as the then minister Sussan Ley embraced the report. She knew what was in it. Now, what minister Watt'—the quote goes on—'has produced is exactly what the report recommended. It's all there. I've been through and I've done a comparison between my report and the legislation and the environmental standards.' So it shocks me to hear the opposition speaking in such a tone and losing sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the environment, and I rise today to speak strongly in support of this historic reform to Australia's environmental laws. This is a great day! It's a great day for me, it's a great day for Labor government and it's a great day for hope for the environment. Here's a quote from Prime Minister Bob Hawke. It reads: When the earth is spoiled, humanity and all living things are diminished. We have taken too much from the earth and given back too little. And it's time to say enough is enough. My commitment to protecting our environment wasn't forged here in the halls of Canberra. It was forged at my home in the electorate of Bullwinkel, standing side by side with my community. It was forged walking through the degraded banks on the Darlington wetlands, championing the local volunteer groups who are rehabilitating this precious ecosystem. It was forged while kneeling in the soil of the Darlington Community Garden—another environmental project which I was proud to help establish—watching my community come together to build something sustainable, local and green. My commitment was also tangible in the restoration of the Friends of the Native Triangle group to continue the environmental protection legacy and rehabilitate local grounds. Those local projects reinforced a fundamental lesson for me: a community's health, its ecosystem and the environment's health are inextricably linked. It is our duty to be good custodians of the environment that we all rely on, as has been done by First Nations peoples for millennia. We are unable to build a prosperous future for our children if we do not protect the air they breathe, the water they drink and the natural world that sustains us all. I care for my community and I care for our environment. My own electorate of Bullwinkel is a truly beautiful electorate, filled with bushland and walking trails that trek beside the Mundaring weir, which is a protected drinking water source for Perth and the Goldfields region. It's filled with Australian natives, including fauna like the black cockatoos, which all need our protection. I'm proud to be part of the Labor Party that is doing just that. This is why I'm so proud to be a member of this Labor government. When it comes to hard work, like the nation-building work of environmental reform, it's always Labor that delivers. Here's a little bit of history: Labor is the party that has delivered in every single major environmental reform in Australia's history. It was Labor that saved the Franklin. It was Labor that protected the Daintree and Kakadu. It was Labor that built Landcare, which is now an institution that is copied across the world. It was Labor that built the largest network of marine parks on this planet. And it is this Albanese Labor government that is finally, meaningfully, and ambitiously addressing the existential threat of climate change. These bills continue that legacy of environmental responsibility. There is a clear and widely accepted need for this reform, which is why the opposition leader commissioned the report five years ago. For a decade, the EPBC Act has been failing. We know this for a fact because that 2020 independent review, led by Professor Graeme Samuel AC and commissioned by the now opposition leader, delivered a comprehensive and scathing report. The Samuel review found that the current EPBC Act is not delivering for the environment—which we all know—and neither is it delivering for business or for the community. It is slow. It is cumbersome. It is ineffective. And our environment is paying the price. The opposition leader was handed that report five years ago and, for all those five years, it sat on the shelf. Faced with a critical and urgent challenge, the coalition did nothing for the environment. Well, we're not walking away. The Labor government tried last year with the nature-positive laws, and now we're doing the job this year. This bill delivers on the recommendations of the Samuel review. Our approach is balanced. It's pragmatic. And it aligns perfectly with the three pillars of reform that Professor Samuel recommended: firstly, stronger environmental protection and restoration; secondly, more efficient and more robust project assessments; and thirdly, greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. This is about getting the balance right. It's about delivering laws that are better for the environment and better for business. This means stronger environmental protections to protect and restore our precious natural habitats. Together with our action on climate change, such as the safeguard mechanism, this means easier processes and faster decisions that are required for building homes, renewable energy infrastructure and critical minerals projects—all things our nation needs for our future. As of 31 October, this government has approved 111 renewable energy projects, producing enough electricity to power more than 13 million homes. Under this government, renewable energy generation has reached new records. It's gone up in volume by around 30 per cent since we came to government. In October around half of all electricity in the national grid came from renewable sources—the highest monthly rate on record. Coal generation is down to only 46 per cent. Our plan is working. We need these environmental reforms to get quicker decisions so that we can deliver the energy transition faster, and that's what Australians voted for. What do these reforms do? First, they establish a national environmental protection agency, the EPA. The EPA will be a strong, independent regulator responsible for education, compliance and enforcement, with powers independent of the minister. Second, we are inserting a new ministerial power to make national environmental standards. This was the central recommendation of the Samuel review. These standards will finally set clear, enforceable expectations for proponents and decision-makers. Third, we are fixing the broken offsets framework. We are moving from 'no net loss' to 'net gain' for the environment. Fourth, for the first time these amendments will define what we consider to be unacceptable impacts for each protected matter—clear no-go zones to prevent irreversible loss unless a project is proven to be in the national interest. Fifth, we're introducing new emissions disclosure requirements in line with the Samuel review. It's not a climate trigger. We have that covered by the safeguard mechanism, but we will require major project proponents to disclose their scope 1 and scope 2 emissions and their plans to reduce them, consistent with government policy. Sixth, we will codify the involvement of First Nations peoples in environmental governance, creating new statutory advisory functions for the Indigenous Advisory Committee. Seventh, we are streamlining access pathways, cutting green tape by rationalising three existing pathways into one. Eighth, we are reducing duplication by fixing the inflexible and unresponsive bilateral agreements with states and territories, ensuring they can deliver assessments and approvals if they meet our new national environmental standards. Ninth, we are delivering proper landscape-scale approaches through bioregional planning. By doing the upfront work to map areas, we can give certainty to industry about where development can and can't occur, while protecting areas of high environmental value. This isn't trivial. Analysis shows that these efficiencies will deliver annual savings of at least half a billion dollars—and potentially as much as $7 billion—to the national economy. This legislation is not a tug of war between the environment and the economy. The coalition and the Greens may try to assert that, but it's not true. This reform delivers a balanced package. It delivers more efficient and robust project decisions, meaning more renewable projects can be decided on more quickly, helping with energy costs and lowering emissions. At the same time, it delivers stronger environmental protection and restoration laws. The need for this change is urgent. Our environment cannot wait any longer, and neither can our economy. The message from environmental groups is also very clear. The three biggest environmental groups have welcomed the confirmation from the Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray Watt, that these amendments will improve the country's national environment laws. They're also happy about the inclusion of significant increases in fines and new enforcement powers. The Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund want the new EPA. They want environmental protection orders which will help stop potential offenders in their tracks and stop the excuses for not acting on their complaints. They support it, business supports it and the roundtable industries support it, and they want parliament to get on with this job. Where are we now? The nature-positive laws got stuck in the Senate for six months. The Liberals wouldn't pass them; they said they went too far. The Greens wouldn't pass them; they said they didn't go far enough. We need to get this done. They have had plenty of time to digest the Samuel review, on which these bills are based; the opposition leader was in support of that review five years ago. Quite frankly, Australians are demanding environmental reform. To the Greens: please do not let perfection get in the way of progress. Nothing has happened for the environment for some time. The EPBC Act is over 20 years old. We need to get on with this job. These reforms are pragmatic. They are strong. They are balanced. They deliver for the environment, they deliver for the economy, they deliver for community groups such as the ones I belong to in Bullwinkel and they deliver for the boardrooms in the city. Every day we delay is a day our environment is degrading further. I commend these bills to the House. 17:41 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six accompanying bills are part of a long-awaited package of reforms to fix our deeply flawed environmental laws. I want to talk about how we got here, the good parts of the bills and the most concerning loopholes that could undermine the bills' effectiveness. Our environmental protection laws were written last century. Everyone agrees they are not fit for purpose. It's rare to find agreement in this building, but on this matter there is consensus. Our environmental laws do not protect nature and do not work for business. More than 48 per cent of the continent is now degraded, and more than 70 per cent of our most diverse regions are devoid of native vegetation. Environmental protection is one of the top three issues constituents contact me about, with thousands of constituents writing to me in the last three years, concerned that the places they love are not being adequately protected. At the same time the timelines for development have blown out, in large part because of the duplication and inefficiencies in our environmental laws. To meet the challenges our country faces today—climate change, cost of living and housing—we need to be able to build, and build quickly. We need renewable energy to reduce our emissions and bring down the cost of electricity. We need more houses for Australians to call home. Yet we're consistently underdelivering. In the last quarter, zero large-scale projects reached financial close. Nationally, we continue to underdeliver on housing targets. This is why EPBC Act reform is essential. With our natural world and ecosystem degrading and delays holding up vital developments, we need a change. Despite the importance and complexity of this issue, the government dropped 1,500 pages of legislation on us on Thursday for debate this week. It's now Tuesday. This makes a mockery of the role of the House of Representatives, which is to deliberate on legislation and hold the government of the day to account. Despite this, I have done my best to review the legislation, speak to a wide range of experts, identify what's good and not so good in the legislation and propose and draft amendments. The Senate is due to report back in March. While these reforms are urgent, I urge the government to wait for the Senate inquiry. We've been waiting for these reforms for 25 years. It's worth waiting a couple more months to get this right. There are some positive changes in this reform package for both business and the environment. For businesses, assessment pathways will be streamlined, with three different processes replaced by a single pathway. This will mean that businesses are spending less time and money on navigating the assessment processes and waiting for an answer. We'll have bioregional plans with 'go' and 'no go' zones. Not only does this more holistically protect nature; it also provides greater certainty and streamlined assessment processes for businesses. And there are some wins for nature. For the first time, unacceptable impacts have been defined. If the damage is bad enough, a project should not be able to go ahead. That's a positive step. And we'll have a clear, legislated mitigation hierarchy for the first time. This means that project proponents have to try to avoid negative impacts and then minimise the unavoidable impacts, and only then can they go to restore or offset the residual impacts. Projects can't just jump straight to offsets. When they do go to offsets, proponents need to show a net gain for the environment. So the overall impact must be better for nature, not just slow the decline. These are all good changes. But there are some very large loopholes that could undermine these benefits. The two I'm focusing on are the integrity of offsets and the national interest exemptions. I'm very open about how to deal with these problems, but they have to be addressed. On offsets, if a project proponent wants to use offsets, where they've tried to avoid or minimise the damage but there's a residual impact, there are two ways they can approach this. They can invest in an offset project directly, or they can pay money into an offsets fund managed by the Restoration Contributions Holder. The intention is that this offsets fund is used to purchase offsets to compensate for the damage caused by the proponents. The EPBC reforms intend to include some good standards for direct offset projects, including requirements that offsets are like for like, additional, and ready to deliver compensation before the damage occurs. But it appears that these standards won't apply for projects funded through the offsets fund. This raises questions about how we ensure that this offsets fund delivers for nature. Funds like this have not worked in the past. We've seen funds in New South Wales, Queensland and the Pilbara that have failed to deliver real restoration of the environment. But why does this happen? It's not about idea and principle. You make it easier for businesses to compensate for their environmental damage by paying into a government fund that can then use its fund—and, hopefully, its expertise in conservation—to strategically and more effectively invest in environmental offsets. But in practice they just don't seem to work. Developers damage the environment and pay into the fund, but the funds always seem to underdeliver on offset projects. This leads to a situation where developers effectively pay to destroy. They pass on their liability to the offsets fund, which then is unable to find suitable offsets. At the end of the day, it's nature that bears the cost. Globally, funds like these are increasingly considered inappropriate to justify the destruction of intact native ecosystems like we have in Australia. I'll be proposing amendments to tighten up the use of this fund. If we consider the comparable funds in New South Wales, Queensland, the Pilbara and overseas, there are a number of consistent lessons to be learned. Firstly, we need to limit the use of the offsets fund. It should be a last resort for developers. Otherwise, the funds simply can't purchase enough offsets to keep up with the damage caused by developments. I'm drafting an amendment that requires projects to use the offsets fund only if they're unable to purchase offsets directly. Effectively this introduces another layer into the mitigation hierarchy: first avoid damage, then mitigate, then directly offset, and only then can you pay into the offsets fund. Another potential solution would be to require large projects that have significant resources to directly offset rather than using the fund. While the offset fund is a great solution for small developers that don't have the capacity to find suitable offsets, large multibillion-dollar companies absolutely have the capacity to secure the offsets themselves rather than pay to pass the liability onto the fund. A cash payment is obviously easier than actually doing the work to offset damage. Without limitations on when the offset funds can be used, all proponents will go for the easy option. Both of these proposed solutions would reduce the use of the offset fund, minimising the risk that it's unable to deliver for nature. Secondly, we've often seen that offset funds are unable to find suitable offsets for the damage caused. The developer pays into the fund for damage to a wetland and passes on its liability. Then, when the offset fund looks for a suitable wetlands offset project, it discovers that none are available. I'm introducing an amendment to ensure that the offsets fund is used only when it's likely that appropriate offsets will be available. If they're not going to be available, the project should be revisiting the damage it's causing. A second amendment creates an excluded matters list—a list of species and ecosystems that are so close to extinction that the fund will never be able to find suitable offsets. Proponents should not be permitted to damage species and ecosystems on the excluded matters list and then make it the fund's problem by making a cash payment. Thirdly, we need to ensure that offsets are priced appropriately. There's a long history of underpricing environmental offsets, and it's always nature that cops the bill. Offsets need to be appropriately priced so that the fund has sufficient capital to purchase offsets that compensate for the damage caused and deliver a net gain. This legislation does not set out the price for offsets but provides for regulations that will determine the price. I'm introducing amendments that require a regular review of the offsets price calculator. I also believe the legislation should outline a set of factors that must be considered in the offsets price calculator, such as administration costs, logistical costs and accounting for the risk of failure. If we get the pricing wrong, the offsets fund becomes ineffective. Fourthly, we need greater transparency on what this fund is actually achieving through public reporting. If it's not working, it must be changed. The offsets fund reports on the progress of its offsets to the minister every year, and I'm introducing an amendment to ensure that this report is made publicly available. It will be vital that there is scientific oversight of this process. I would suggest that the legislation should also specify that the restoration contributions advisory committee contain significant expertise related to threatened species and ecological restoration. There may well be other ways to improve the integrity of the offsets fund, and I'm very open to considering them, but we've seen, from a range of comparable jurisdictions, that these funds can often provide a cheap way out for developers at the expense of the environment. With this legislation as it is, this offsets fund represents a potential single point of failure for the entire reform package. We must get it right. My second major concern is about the national interest test. There are two national interest pathways. The first is called the national interest exemption. It allows the minister to declare that a project is in the national interest and allows it to bypass all environmental safeguards. It's intended to be used for natural disasters and emergencies when we need to override environmental laws. This test has always existed and has mostly been used in good faith. But this package introduces a new exemption called the national interest proposal. This appears quite similar to the national interest exemption; it allows the minister to choose to bypass almost all environmental safeguards. But this new national interest proposal appears to be intended for a much broader range of projects, including housing or energy projects. There are no limits on what the minister can consider in determining whether a project is a national interest proposal. There's a real risk that a minister could use this exemption for political reasons. We don't need this additional separate pathway. It provides an opportunity for this or a future government to completely ignore the environmental protections and declare every project to be in the national interest. And it's not great for business. You can't make long-term investment decisions on the chance that the minister will consider that your project fits the vague definition of 'the national interest'. We should be accelerating approvals by streamlining the environmental assessment, rather than introducing a sneaky bypass that's completely left to the minister. If the government is unwilling to remove the national interest proposal then, at the very least, fossil fuel projects should not be able to bypass environmental protections. I'll introduce an amendment to this effect. When the government does exercise its discretionary power to bypass environmental laws, there should be very strong transparency in relation to that decision. These reforms allow the minister to redact information from the statement of reasons required under the current EPBC Act when the national interest exemption is used. There's no reason for more secrecy under the new laws. If the minister is going to bypass the environmental laws, the public has a right to know why. I have a series of other concerns about these reforms that I don't have time to address. These reforms do not deal with land clearing or native forest logging. There's a huge amount of ministerial discretion. The phrase 'ministerial satisfaction' appears over 600 times in the combined bills and explanatory memoranda. They do not introduce a climate trigger or introduce climate considerations, even though climate change is the biggest threat to the environment. There are also huge uncertainties around key features of the reforms, including the safeguards for the bilateral accreditation processes, which could be an opportunity for reduced duplication if we get it right, and uncertainties about the independence and power of the national EPA, about the rigour of the national environmental standards and about the process of and community engagement in developing bioregional plans. Despite the ridiculous timeframes and the serious concerns in these bills, I would encourage every part of the parliament to contribute constructively to this process and accept that no-one is going to get everything they want. We need to make our environmental laws work better so we can safeguard the environment and build a future that we're proud to leave to our children and grandchildren. I implore the Greens to act constructively and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is an opportunity to show that you've learnt the lessons of the last election. People want outcomes, and you have a chance to deliver. I implore the coalition to show that they can be an effective party of opposition and to focus on the need to improve the laws for the environment and for business rather than use this as a pointscoring exercise. Australians are sick of the petty politics. They want to see constructive engagement and results. Perhaps most importantly, I implore the government to act in good faith to improve this legislation and get it passed. These bills require significant amendments. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the environmental laws that protect our environment and support our businesses. Let's get it right. I'll be working constructively with the government and others in the House and the Senate to come up with a package that can satisfy the twin imperatives of more certainty and timeliness for business and a better environment for our children and grandchildren. I will now move a second reading amendment acknowledging the need for better outcomes for business and the environment and the need to work together and pass environmental reforms and calling on the government to amend this bill to resolve its significant flaws. I move the amendment circulated in my name: 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: (1) acknowledges that we need to achieve better outcomes for business and the environment; (2) further acknowledges it is in the interest of the Government, Opposition and crossbench to work constructively to pass these reforms; and (3) calls on the Government to amend this bill to resolve significant flaws, including loopholes in the offsets framework". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Spender 286042 The amendment is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak. 17:57 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby On the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and associated bills—one of the major reasons I chose, in 2021, to give up a really meaningful job with St Vincent de Paul in South Australia and spend 10 months campaigning unpaid was the appalling record of the previous Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government on climate and the environment. This was a government who, in concert with the then SA Liberal environment minister, David Speirs, sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to the detriment of South Australia's water security, our environment, our regional communities and our downstream agriculture. They cut funding to the environment by 40 per cent. They teamed up with the Greens political party to axe climate laws that would have seen Australia reaping the economic and environmental benefits of having cut emissions via an efficient market driven mechanism. The one thing they actually did well for the environment was the 2020 Samuel review, commissioned by the now opposition leader during her tenure as environment minister. Then they promptly ignored it. Professor Samuel says now that he's bitterly disappointed with their current position. Join the queue, Professor Samuel. Disappointing Australia seems to be the forte of the Liberal and National parties—a natural talent, if you will. What I learned from campaigning in 2021 and 2022 was that I was not alone in Boothby in my sense of frustration about the then coalition government's lack of action and, indeed, actual sabotage of the environment. They had two record-breaking election losses in a row, but those opposite seem still not to be listening to what the Australian public is telling them or what the environment's telling them—or business, developers and investors. The current environment laws are broken. They don't adequately protect the environment. But they also don't work for business developers or investors. We now have the opportunity to fix our broken environment laws. We have the opportunity to protect our environment, which we depend upon for our Australian way of life. We have the opportunity to make these laws work for business, developers and investors so that they have certainty for investment, so they can get to a fast 'yes' or a fast 'no' without wasting time or money on investments that are never going to come off. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix these laws and protect our environment, and we've waited too long already. The best time to have done this was perhaps a couple of decades ago. The second-best time was half a decade ago, when the Samuel report was delivered to the previous coalition government. The third-best time is now. Labor is the party of the environment. Labor has delivered every single major environmental reform in Australia's history—Landcare; saving the Franklin; protecting the Daintree and Kakadu; building the largest network of marine parks in the world; and meaningfully addressing the threat of climate change. Since 2022, the Albanese Labor government has passed strong laws to force big polluters to cut emissions, so that Australia gets to net zero carbon pollution by 2050. We have reduced Australia's emissions by 29 per cent below 2005 levels already, and we're on track for 43 per cent by 2030. We have committed to 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, and we're well on the way. Already 18 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity has been installed across Australia since we were elected in 2022. We have approved 111 renewable energy projects, producing enough electricity to power more than 13 million homes, and we have approved a further 29 projects. We've protected an extra 95 million hectares of Australian ocean and land, expanding marine parks around Macquarie, Heard and McDonald islands. We've established Environment Information Australia, to give the public and business easier access to the latest environmental data. We've doubled the funding to better look after national parks, including Kakadu and Uluru. We've doubled the Indigenous Rangers Program. We've invested over $600 million to better protect our threatened plants and animals and to tackle feral animals and weeds. And we've invested $200 million to clean up our rivers. We've increased recycling capacity by more 1.4 million tonnes a year, diverting recyclables from landfill. We've established the world's first nature repair market, making it easier to invest in nature restoration. And of course let's not forget that our home battery scheme has delivered over 110,000 additional batteries in just over four months. We've given the safeguard mechanism teeth, requiring net emission reductions from our 215 biggest emitters of five per cent a year—equivalent to taking two-thirds of the cars off the road by 2030. And we've brought in new vehicle emission standards, giving Australians more choice of cheaper-to-run cars. We've legislated to bring the Climate Change Authority back, to play a meaningful role in advising government. We've put net zero in the objects of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and in the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act and made it relevant to other key agencies, such as Infrastructure Australia and Export Finance Australia. Now, I know the concept of net zero is triggering for those opposite, but you can't say you understand the science of climate change, the impacts it's already having on our planet and our country, and what it will do in the future, if you then turn around and say, 'We want to slow down any action and turn a target into an "ambition".' That brings me to this bill. The Environment Protection Reform Bill delivers modern, fit-for-purpose, national environment laws that ensure big gains for both the environment and business. The Albanese Labor government is committed to reforming our national environment laws to deliver stronger environmental protections, reduce duplication and boost accountability and transparency in decision-making. It has been five long years since Professor Graeme Samuel tabled his report for the former environment minister Sussan Ley, and our laws remain broken. They aren't working for the environment, they aren't working for business or industry and they aren't working for investors. Our unique natural environment is irreplaceable, and we owe it to our children and our grandchildren to do everything we can to protect it. But the Samuel review told us that the environment is going backwards. These reforms that we're presenting today are based on the recommendations from Professor Samuel in his 2020 report. Professor Samuel himself has publicly backed this bill as meeting all of the recommendations in his report. These laws are a targeted and balanced package of reforms to the EPBC Act centred on three key pillars. Stronger environmental protection and restoration— (Quorum formed) As I was saying, I know that net zero is very triggering for those opposite, but you can't say that you understand climate science and that you understand and care about the impact that's happening on our planet and our country if you then turn around and say you want to slow down any action and turn a target into an ambition. These stronger environmental protection and restoration laws won't just deliver better protections for our special places but restore and regenerate them for future generations, which those opposite clearly don't care about. More efficient and robust project assessments and approvals will allow us to better respond to and deliver on national priorities that work for the betterment of our country, like the renewable energy transition, a future made in Australia and the housing that we need, which those opposite don't seem to understand. It will also give business, industry and investors the certainty of a fast yes or a fast no for their proposals, and accountability and transparency in decision-making to give all Australians confidence in these laws. And, of course, most notably, these laws will establish Australia's first-ever independent environmental protection agency, which will be a strong, independent regulator with a clear focus on ensuring better compliance with and stronger enforcement of Australia's new environmental laws. The reforms will also allow the environment minister to make national environment standards, standards that will set boundaries for decisions to ensure they deliver improved environmental outcomes. The standards will protect the environment, give business clear rules and help decision-makers be fair and consistent. I know that my electorate of Boothby will be particularly interested in the remake of the environment offset system. Sometimes projects can harm the environment in ways that can't be avoided, and, when this happens, steps must be taken to compensate or make up for that damage—an environmental offset. The offset could take the form of an action, a payment or both. I constantly hear from people very concerned that the current offsets regime is not effective and has enabled polluters to consider paying for cheap and ineffective offsets as a cost of doing business that they're willing to pay. Under the new system, projects will be required in the first instance, by law, to avoid, mitigate or repair damage to protected matters where possible. Any residual significant impacts on nationally protected matters must be fully offset to achieve a net gain for the environment. They must leave the environment better off. The current legislation requires no net loss, so moving to a net gain for the environment is a massive step forward. A net gain could be achieved either by the proponent delivering directly on an offset—a new and improved offset that is a real offset—or through an upfront financial contribution to a restoration fund. Proposed reforms will introduce new options for offsetting. Projects proponents can deliver an offset themselves or pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment—or a combination of both. The proposed changes will also allow certain biodiversity certificates, issued under the Nature Repair Market, to be used for environmental offsetting, and this helps ensure that there are enough environmental offsets to provide real, lasting environmental benefits. Part of the clarity the EPBC bill will bring includes a clear understanding of go and no-go zones. The reforms will include a new definition of unacceptable impact specific to each protected matter. This will set clear and upfront criteria for impacts that cannot be approved unless the project meets the national interest test. It will increase transparency, consistency and certainty of decisions. This applies to protected matters under the EPBC Act, including World Heritage areas, threatened species and wetlands of international importance. Now, we'd like to think that all players in this area would value our environment—that they'd do the right thing; however, we do live in the real world. The Samuel review recognised that, for some bad actors, breaching the law is just the cost of doing business, so the reforms increase the penalties for the most serious and significant breaches of legislation, and they allow courts to respond proportionately to the most egregious breaches. I'm so pleased that we've introduced this EPBC bill. This is really important legislation. This is legislation that my electorate—and in fact all of Australia—has been waiting for for too long. It responds fully to the recommendations of the Samuel review. It's legislation that the environment needs and that business, industry and developers need; it's legislation that this country needs. I commend the bill to the House. 18:12 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan In Australia, an area of forests and bushland the size of a football field is logged every two minutes. This is wanton, government sanctioned destruction of our environment by rapacious big corporations in pursuit of profit. We have the highest rate of mammal species extinctions in the world. The Labor government has approved 31 new fossil fuel projects since coming into government, including an extension to the Southern Hemisphere's largest fossil fuel project, Woodside's North West Shelf—fossil fuel projects by big corporations that pay little in tax and royalties while wrecking our environment, wrecking our planet and exporting the profits overseas. This is all happening under the current environmental legislative framework, which, it seems, everyone acknowledges is not working for business or the environment. The sad reality is that these new laws are actually worse. These proposed laws are worse. They've been, seemingly, drafted with only big business in mind rather than designed to actually stop environmental destruction. Previous versions of environmental laws from the last term of parliament were quashed after lobbying from the logging sector and the mining sector and their chief political mouthpiece, Western Australian Labor premier Roger Cook. One of the very first things that the new minister for the environment and water did this term was fly to Perth to consult with the mining sector again—the first consultations—with, apparently, his No. 1 priority being to speed up approvals for big business. That priority could not be clearer in the legislation that's been presented to parliament. Let's just break it down. There are two big failures to address existing gaps in our environmental laws. Firstly, the generous exemptions for native forest logging remain. They remain. It is absolutely crazy that we are still logging native forests in 2025—destruction of our precious natural environment, in many cases subsidised by Australian taxpayers. These native forests are incredibly important wildlife habitat and crucial carbon sinks as well. Secondly, there is no climate trigger in this legislation. That means that the carbon emissions produced by a project which has a direct environmental impact are not considered under environmental laws. This has, obviously and tragically, resulted in dozens of coal and gas projects gaining approval under the existing laws, and they will continue to be approved under the proposed legislation. Nothing in this proposed legislation will stop that. But the problems, the failings of these laws, don't stop there. It's not that this legislation just fails to protect nature and the climate; it is actively taking us backwards, because there's another tranche of inclusions. They are a bit technical, and Labor are hoping you don't notice them, but I'll go through some of them. There are multiple new pathways to streamline approvals for the benefit of big polluters. This proposed legislation allows the minister to delegate approvals to the states so projects can bypass federal regulations like the water trigger in the existing EPBC Act. Horrifyingly, in Queensland, it means delegating to the climate-denying LNP government. There's also a new pathway for offshore oil and gas to exempt them from these laws, and, perhaps most concerningly, there are new pathways for ministerial exemptions: a broadly defined 'national interest test', including for projects in apparent no-go zones or that cause an unacceptable environmental impact. The national environment standards that underpin this whole piece of reform have not yet been made public. We're expected to pass the bill without actually having seen them. This legislation also reverses an earlier restriction on environmental offsets, which we know are more than questionable. The Biodiversity Council has criticised this offsets principle as weakening the current like-for-like standard, which forces offsets to account for the ecological character affected. Offsets should not be allowing big corporations to simply pay to keep destroying the environment. Labor are prioritising the interests of big corporations over the environment and over the planet, and it couldn't be clearer when you look at who is backing their environmental law reform. Chevron? They support these laws. Australian energy producers, the oil and gas lobby? They said: Australia's oil and gas industry supports the government's commitment to deliver faster and simpler environmental approvals … BHP 'welcome the strong signals from the Australian government'. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies welcome the bill and commend the minister. The-Minerals Council of Australia were very happy that a climate trigger was ruled out and said that there were 'a range of measures in the package which will help development in the long term'. So what are the experts on the environment saying? The Australian Conservation Foundation says, 'These bills do not protect nature,' and that they provide 'a rubber stamp for species extinction'. Greenpeace said that the proposed laws 'fail to address deforestation and climate change', and they also raised serious concerns about the level of ministerial discretion included. The Wilderness Society said the new laws would increase political interference and create 'new loopholes to weaken nature protections'. So who should we trust? I know I'd rather trust those environmental organisations over the coal and gas corporation lobby groups. Some conspiracy theories are real. Here's one you'll want to hear: big corporations really do control our government. Here's the story. Labor promised environmental law reform when they came into government in 2022. The Greens said we were happy to work with them to protect nature and the climate. But, at the eleventh hour of negotiations, the mining industry—companies like Woodside, Santos and BHP—decided they weren't happy. They got on the phone to Western Australian Premier Roger Cook, who then lobbied the Prime Minister to tell him to kill the deal, and he did. Then, under pressure from the same big corporations, in February this year the bill was withdrawn from parliament altogether. One of the first things that the new environment minister did was to fly to Perth to consult with mining companies on the new version of the laws. His No. 1 priority was to speed up approvals so big corporations can wreck the environment even faster. BHP have said they welcome the strong signals from the government. I'm sure they and the other mining companies are happy that they can keep making mega profits, paying minimal tax and getting their approvals fast-tracked, without worrying about that pesky environment or climate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I call the member for Maribyrnong, and I should point out that one of her predecessors, Dr Moss Cass, was Australia's first environment minister. 18:20 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong That may very well be in my speech, Deputy Speaker. Every day in Maribyrnong, you can see what's worth fighting for: the river, winding through our suburbs; the creeks, alive with birdlife; and the volunteers who spend their weekends planting trees and restoring country. That's what this reform is about—protecting the places we love while building a stronger, cleaner, fairer future. This legislation is a turning point for our environment, for our economy and for the kind of Australia we want to build. This reform is about more than paperwork and process; it's about whether our kids will still hear the birdsong in our suburbs, still swim in the clean rivers and still walk through forests that haven't been lost to short-term thinking. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 is our chance to get it right—to build a system that protects nature, supports jobs and drives the clean energy future we owe to the next generation. Together with the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 and the restoration and charges bills, this is the most ambitious environmental reform in decades—a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset, which puts protection and progress on the same page, because that's what Labor does. We don't sit on the sidelines, we don't wait for perfection and we don't just talk about change; we make it happen. We're the party that saved the Franklin, protected the Daintree, expanded Kakadu and created the world's largest network of marine parks. We're the party that acted on climate when others said it could wait. And we're doing it again—rebuilding Australia's environmental laws to deliver real protection, real jobs and real accountability, not for hashtags or headlines but because it's the right thing to do—because our country deserves better. The truth is our existing environmental laws are broken. The independent Samuel review, commissioned in 2020, found what communities, conservationists and industry have known for years: that our current EPBC Act is failing. It's not protecting our environment, it's not giving business certainty and it's not supporting the projects that our country needs to build homes, renewable energy and a strong future made in Australia. We can't afford to keep doing things the same way. Australians expect better. The people of Maribyrnong expect better. My community cares deeply about the natural world—about our rivers and parks, our threatened species and the world we'll leave our kids. They want environmental laws that actually work—laws that protect nature and cut through red tape; laws that get results. That's exactly what these reforms will deliver. These reforms stand on three clear pillars: stronger protection and restoration; faster and fairer decisions; and greater accountability and transparency. Let me speak briefly on each. First, we're putting environmental protection back at the heart of the law, where it belongs. For too long, the system has been full of grey areas and loopholes—decisions made behind closed doors and projects approved that clearly shouldn't have been. This reform says 'no more'. For the first time, this law will make it clear that the projects with unacceptable impacts on our most precious places and species cannot be approved, unless they pass a strict national interest test. We're finally enshrining national environmental standards, something Labor has been fighting for for years. These will set clear, enforceable rules for biodiversity, offsets, First Nations engagement and environmental data. We're also overhauling the offset system so that every project must deliver a net gain for nature, not just less damage. Every project must give back more than it takes. We're creating a restoration fund so companies can contribute to genuine landscape-scale restoration—planting trees, protecting habitat, restoring wetlands, strengthening ecosystems—because protecting the environment isn't just about stopping harm; it's about healing country. We're backing this up with tougher enforcement, stronger penalties and new powers to stop environmental damage before it happens—no more treating fines as a cost of doing business. For the first time, big projects will have to disclose their emissions and abatement plans, because Australians deserve honesty and transparency from those profiting off our environment. This is what Labor does best: turn big principles into practical outcomes. The second pillar is about getting things moving responsibly. Right now, the approval system is slow, confusing and full of duplication between governments. That helps no-one—not communities, not business and certainly not the environment—so we're fixing it. We'll introduce streamlined pathways for projects that provide strong, transparent information upfront—cutting red tape, not corners. We'll modernise bilateral agreements with states and territories so assessments can be done once, properly and to national standards. We'll invest in bioregional planning, mapping out areas for development and areas for conservation. Communities will know what's protected, and businesses will know where they can invest with certainty. When you set clear rules and enforce them properly, you get faster, fairer, better outcomes, and that's what these reforms deliver. The third pillar, perhaps the most important pillar, is accountability because people have lost trust. They've seen governments look the other way, approvals be waved through and big polluters treat fines as a rounding error. That ends here. We're establishing the National Environmental Protection Agency, an independent, tough, transparent regulator with real teeth. It will enforce the law, investigate breaches and hold corporations to account. The national EPA will make sure no-one—no company, no project, no government—is above the rules. Alongside it, we're creating Environment Information Australia to make environmental data open, accurate and accessible. Australians will finally be able to see in plain sight the state of our environment updated regularly and backed by science, because sunlight is the best disinfectant. Australians deserve a system that's fair, fast and honest, and that's what these reforms deliver. While this government is getting on with delivering the biggest environmental reform in a generation, others in this place are playing the same old games. The coalition, who sat on the Samuel review for years, are now pretending to care about process, and the Greens, once again, are threatening to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Well, my community in Maribyrnong has no time for political posturing or empty protest. We want progress—real, tangible change that protects our environment and builds our future. The people of Maribyrnong know how much our environment shapes our lives. From the banks of the Maribyrnong River to the creeks that stretch across our suburbs, our green spaces aren't just beautiful; they're the lungs of our community. They're where families walk, kids play and volunteers roll up their sleeves to care for country. Groups like Moonee Valley Sustainability, Friends of Steele Creek and Friends of the Maribyrnong Valley have spent decades restoring native habitats and protecting local waterways. Their work reminds us that caring for nature is about more than trees and species; it's about health, connection and the kind of community we want to build for the future. It's a legacy we're proud of in Maribyrnong. One of my predecessors—the late, great Moss Cass—served as Australia's first environment and conservation minister. He fought to legislate the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and set the standard for bold, science driven environmental leadership. His reforms laid the groundwork that protected the Great Barrier Reef, saved Fraser Island from sand mining and curtailed uranium mining in Kakadu. It was Moss's belief that power only matters if you do something bold with it. This legislation before the House today is bold. It will deliver stronger safeguards for local waterways and ecosystems; faster, clearer approvals for renewable energy and housing projects that create jobs; and a more transparent system that people can trust. My community voted for action that protects the environment and builds Australia's future, and that's exactly what this Labor government is doing. Not everyone in this place shares that commitment or real desire for action. The coalition, true to form, still treat environmental policy as a burden, not a responsibility, and now we see just how far they've fallen. They are on the cusp of abandoning their net zero commitment because of the climate-denying extremists who now dominate their party room. The modern Liberal Party is no longer a party for government. It has been hijacked by denial, captured by conspiracy and paralysed by cowardice. Even their leader is choosing political survival over Australia's future. They continue to show their true colours on environment: divided, inconsistent and driven by ideology rather than science. Let's remember that the Samuel review that underpins these reforms was commissioned and received by the now opposition leader when she was environment minister. She had the report in her hands five years ago and did nothing—absolutely nothing. It sums up those opposite perfectly. When it comes to the environment, they just don't care. Then there are the Greens, whose purity politics too often have let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let's not forget that it was the Greens who teamed up with the climate deniers opposite in 2009 to block Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, setting Australia's climate action back decades. They talk about urgency but vote for delay. They preach progress while standing in the way of it. These reforms deliver real protection: an independent EPA to hold polluters accountable; national environmental standards with legal force; net gain offsets to restore the environment; and faster approvals for housing, clean energy and critical minerals. Yet the Greens threaten to block them because they're not perfect enough and because they prefer protest over progress. The people of my state and of Australia have had enough of it. At the last election, they rejected the Greens' policy of protest and purity. They voted for progress, not posturing. In my neighbouring electorate, they ousted the leader of the Greens and replaced him with a progressive Labor woman focused on getting things done. Australians know this: real progress doesn't come from shouting from the sidelines; it comes from doing the hard work, making the tough calls and delivering real outcomes. That's what Labor is doing, right here. This bill is Labor at its best: bold, practical and driven by a belief that the government can and should make life better. We're not here to talk about what can't be done; we're here to get it done. We're here to protect our rivers and bushlands, to fast-track clean energy that will power our homes and industries and to build an environmental system that finally matches the scale of the challenges we face. It's a reform that learns from the past and from the years of denial and delay. It sets Australia on a new path—one where protecting nature goes hand in hand with creating jobs, homes and opportunities. This is a Labor government acting with purpose. We're delivering stronger safeguards for nature, we're delivering faster and fairer decisions for communities, and we're delivering the accountability and transparency that rebuild trust. Our environment can't wait, and neither can our children's' future. That's why I'm proud to stand here today on behalf of the people of Maribyrnong to back in this reform—to back progress over protest, action over rhetoric and hope over cynicism. Labor is once again leading the nation, protecting what we love, building what we need and delivering for the generations to come. I commend the bill to the House. 18:32 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I'm pleased to stand here today in the House and speak on the seven environmental bills that are part of the government's environmental reforms: the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 and the four environment protection and biodiversity conservation charge imposition bills. These bills respond to the government's 2022 election commitment to reform Australia's environmental laws. I welcome the introduction of these considerable reforms for debate and the intention to better protect our natural environment. My electorate of Indi boasts spectacular natural places that locals and visitors alike enjoy visiting. Indi's biodiversity is striking, providing essential habitat for critically endangered swift parrots, barking owls, common bent-wing bats and the vulnerable growling frog. When I was first elected as the member for Indi in 2019, I was given a strong mandate to advocate for nature. My constituents care deeply about nature. Since 2019, I've received more than 25,000 emails, letters and phone calls from my constituents about the environment, overwhelmingly calling for stronger protections. Rural communities are stewards of the land. Farming and tourism industries depend on it. Through this caretaker relationship, regional Australians intimately understand the impacts of climate change. We experience it in hotter summers, increasing bushfire risk, larger floods that push insurance costs beyond reach, and erratic weather patterns that cause unpredictable crop yields. I have a strong belief that we can deliver better laws for the environment and laws that work for rural communities and for business. But make no mistake: the primary reason for these bills must be to protect the environment. These bills propose significant changes to the EPBC Act, including introducing national environmental standards, stronger penalties for breaking environmental laws, and bioregional planning into our environmental laws, as well as improving public information on the environment, including publishing a state-of-the-environment report every two years, creating Australia's first Environmental Protection Agency and a new framework to impose general, customs, excise and regulation charges. As they currently stand, our environmental laws are fundamentally flawed. They're not protecting our environment, and they're filled with uncertainty for business. Professor Graeme Samuel's 2020 independent review of the EPBC Act laid this bare and called for reform—and I agree. I have approached this legislation seeking to identify progress to protect the environment and to ensure that regional communities are meaningfully consulted on projects that impact them. There is some real progress to be found within this legislation, particularly in relation to stronger penalties for breaking environmental laws and better information sharing, enabled through Environmental Information Australia. But, despite this progress, there are sweeping issues in this legislation that I feel must be addressed. Primarily, there are extraordinary powers that give ministerial discretion through this legislation. Ministerial discretion, in a democratically elected government, is not inherently bad. I'm not one of those people who think there shouldn't be any ministerial discretion. But the problem here is that, alongside these discretionary powers, there's little transparency over how the minister uses this discretion or guardrails to ensure that decisions align with the intent of these laws to protect nature. We should get insight into whether the minister sought advice from the EPA CEO, for example, and whether their decision is in contradiction of that advice. Perhaps most unclear are the minister's broad national interest exemption powers, and I know many people are concerned about this, because they enable the minister to contravene national environmental standards and approve projects that the minister deems to be in the national interest. And there's no clarity about what can be defined as being in the national interest or not. Our laws and the protections they give to the environment must be free from vested political interests, now and in the future. Secretive ministerial discretion in decision-making simply doesn't foster the trust that we need. The objective of the national EPA is to deliver focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. To achieve this, the agency must be free from influence and equipped with strong regulatory powers to enforce laws. And while the government says that this body is independent, I do have some significant concerns about its governance. There's no provision for the CEO to be appointed through a transparent and merit based assessment process and no governance board to ensure that the CEO performs their functions consistent with the act. Ministerial influence over the EPA fundamentally undermines the objective of this agency and diminishes trust in the whole EPBC Act. We need to get this right. Critical to Graeme Samuel's environmental reforms were robust, legally enforceable national environmental standards, outlining the environmental objectives of the EPBC Act. National standards are necessary for effective, clear and consistent environmental decision-making. A key criticism I had of the former stage 2 nature-positive reforms was indeed that these standards were missing. I'm pleased that the government has listened and has included a provision for the minister to create national environmental standards in regulation. I also welcome the 'no regression' principle applied to these standards, noting that this does not apply until after the first 18-month review. The government has flagged its intention to create national standards relating to matters of national environmental significance, offsets, data and environmental information, and First Nations engagement. I welcome those. I am, however, disappointed that the minister is yet to commit to a national standard for community engagement and consultation, because communities are absolutely critical stakeholders. Our Farmers for Climate Action survey found 76 per cent of regional Australians believe that early and genuine community consultation for renewable energy projects helps build community trust, and, if we have community trust, we can get approvals through in a much, much better way. Under the legislation we're debating today, there are no requirements for community consultation on projects approved under the EPBC Act, and, in my mind, that's completely unacceptable. A national standard for community engagement and consultation would improve certainty for developers and regional communities alike, giving clear expectations that, for any project seeking approval under the EPBC Act, proponents must adhere to best-practice community engagement. That can only be a good thing. So I will be moving an amendment requiring the government to develop a national environmental standard for community engagement and consultation. This standard, as I said, must be applied to all projects, but it's particularly vital for fast-tracked approvals and for priority action projects in declared development zones within bioregional plans. I've consistently called for regional mapping that clearly identifies areas that are not suitable for project development. In fact, this was my No. 1 recommendation to the community engagement review undertaken by the then energy infrastructure commissioner, Professor Andrew Dyer. I'm pleased to see bioregional planning included in this legislation. I genuinely am. This is a commonsense solution that gives project developers certainty over where they will get a quick 'no' on a project, and hopefully reduces unnecessary stress on regional communities. This legislation also identifies development zones, which means certain types of projects most appropriate for an area can be given faster approval. The government has a difficult role in managing competing land-use priorities. Done right, bioregional mapping can ensure our land is most appropriately and effectively used for environmental protection and regeneration, for farming the food and fibre we rely on and for the renewable energy to meet our energy needs. This planning needs to be done at a regional and a national level to ensure that we are being strategic, and it must be consistent with other national land-use policies. The government is currently creating a national food security strategy to ensure we can meet our domestic food needs and international obligations and to ensure our food production is better protected against climate change. Bioregional planning under the EPBC Act must link with this strategy to identify the areas of high-value agricultural land most essential to protecting our food security and to identify where land is better and more economically suited to environmental regeneration or, indeed, to renewable energy projects. This is the opportunity to get this right. Let me be clear: I am not saying that renewable energy projects should not be placed on farming land, because many farmers welcome this. It's an additional form of diversification in their income. It protects them in times of drought or other difficult periods. But what I am saying is that we must be strategic about this. We must ensure that high-value agricultural land is preserved and farmers and communities can host renewable infrastructure and receive long-term economic benefits. I believe we can do both. But we can only do both if we consult with our communities, if we get the bioregional planning right and if we really link all of our national and our regional planning in a sensible and well considered way. I will be moving amendments to ensure areas of high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments are considered when defining the boundary of a development zone within a bioregional plan. This is critical. High-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments are critical areas of our natural environment. I will also move amendments to increase the consultation timeframes for communities back out to 60 days. Shutting community out of environmental decision-making is bad for regional communities, bad for social licence and ultimately bad for project outcomes. Another disappointing loophole to see in the Environmental Protection Regulation Bill is a very quiet carve-out exemption from penalties for minor and preparatory works. Under the EPBC Act 1999, it is an offence for a proponent to undertake work on a project deemed a controlled action before it has been approved by the minister. The government's amendment in the Environment Protection Reform Bill opens an exemption under this rule allowing the minister to authorise minor and preparatory works to start before the minister has made an assessment. If a project is on a site with concerns significant enough to be referred to the minister for a controlled action decision, how can it be acceptable for that project to start works? This power poses multiple risks to communities, the environment, and the quality and integrity in environmental assessment under the EPBC Act. I will be moving an amendment to repeal this section of the legislation. In closing, I really believe this legislation represents the biggest change to our national environment laws in 25 years. It presents an enormous opportunity. It is extremely complex. Let's make no mistake. I welcome the Senate inquiry into this suite of bills to provide fulsome scrutiny of legislation. It's a vital opportunity for stakeholders and communities to contribute their views. I acknowledge that reforming the EPBC Act is a large and challenging task. I don't underestimate that. There are truly some positives in this legislation. But I believe more needs to be done to ensure that it is fit for purpose to protect our environment into the future, so I call on the government to back my amendments. They are in good faith and address issues that disproportionately impact rural communities, issues that people in my electorate of Indi care so deeply about. Our environmental laws are currently failing the environment. We can't afford to wait another 25 years, but we also can't afford not to get it right this time. 18:46 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I rise today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the proposed reforms. These reforms will ensure the future and prosperity of our beautiful country and environment. Of course, while speaking on these beautiful lands, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples and indeed all First Nations people. For tens of thousands of years, they have cared for and acted as stewards of the lands, air, waterways and oceans of this country. It is within this tradition of stewardship, protection and care that I speak on these bills. Australia is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, from mountain ranges in the east to breathtaking beaches in the west. It is home to a rich biodiversity unlike anywhere else on the planet. Even in my own electorate of Cooper, despite being better known for some of Australia's best lattes and coolest streets, we are home to an abundance of beautiful lands, including waterways like the Merri Creek, the Darebin Creek and Edgars Creek. They are benefiting right now from federal government investments to rewild and protect them and also from the ancient knowledge of Indigenous rangers, including groups that do cultural burns on the waterways, exposing ancient Indigenous grasses and plants that haven't been seen for decades and possibly centuries. In addition to our wonderful First Nations groups who have protected these beautiful lands and waterways, it's been the environment and climate movement and thousands of activists young and old who've played such a big role in championing and protecting our natural environment. In Cooper we have many groups focusing on protecting the environment: Friends of Edwardes Lake, headed up by the indomitable Kate Jost; Darebin Climate Action Now, a tireless group of climate and environment campaigners; friends of all of the creeks I mentioned above, who tirelessly plant trees, remove rubbish and volunteer every weekend; amazing individual warriors like Cath Rouse, who showed me Toolangi Forest for the first time, and the amazing Carolyn Lunt, who helps locals convert their gardens to native Indigenous wonderlands; and, of course, our local Labor members who make up LEAN, the Labor Environment Action Network. I love working with these groups. It's truly one of the highlights of my role as a local representative. Indeed, it's one of the hallmarks of Labor governments to work constructively with the environment movement to bring about real, lasting change for the environment. Whether it be working with protesters in Tasmania to save the Franklin, championing First Nation groups to protect the Daintree and Kakadu or collaborating with unions on green bans, Labor has delivered real change for the environment. But the reality is that all this is under threat because Australia's national environmental laws are no longer fit for purpose. The EPBC Act is 26 years old now. In 2020 Graeme Samuel tabled his report for the then environment minister—now the Leader of the Opposition—the member for Farrer. The report showed that environmental laws in this country were broken and in desperate need of reform. The laws do not work for the environment, they do not work for industries and they do not work for the Australian people. This report was delivered with clear directions on next steps, and it sat there for years. Is it any wonder our environment fared so badly under the Liberals and Nationals when, in the last decade, they repeatedly axed climate laws; failed to fix Australia's broken environment laws despite having a widely supported blueprint to do so; sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; promised $40 million of Indigenous water plans but never delivered a drop; set recycling targets with no plan to deliver them—the list goes on. Today we are trying to correct the record after inaction and neglect. After turning their back on the environment while in power—and now actively working against progress—the Nationals and the Liberals are standing in the way of creating a sustainable country. Every day we delay, every day we let them drag their feet, the more it costs us. It costs our country, our beautiful landscapes, the chance for a protected natural environment that will be here long after us. It's why it's an honour to speak on these bills, and I extend my congratulations to the environment minister as well as the former environment minister, the member for Sydney, for all their work. Moreover, I extend my congratulations to everyone in the community who has worked constructively with the government on developing this legislation. In particular, I note, again, the work of the Labor Environment Action Network. They have been champions of these reforms for years. These bills deliver modern, fit-for-purpose national environmental laws. These laws are a targeted package of reforms to the EPBC Act centred on three key pillars: stronger environmental protection and restoration; more efficient and robust project approvals; and greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. These are stronger environmental protection and restoration laws that won't just deliver better protections for our species and our special places but restore and regenerate them for future generations. There will be more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals that will allow us to better respond and deliver on national priorities like the renewable energy transition, a future made in Australia and the housing that we so desperately need, and greater accountability and transparency in decision-making to give all Australians confidence in these laws. All in all, the government has been guided by Graeme Samuel's seminal report. It's our priority to deliver the Samuel report recommendations as a critical first step. History shows us that progress comes in steps. The steps proposed in these new laws are huge. There's always more to do, but those who wait for the final step before we even start often end up taking no steps at all. We have seen this before. I still wonder, to this day, how far down the track we'd be if we had introduced a CPRS over a decade ago. We need to start protecting nature now. These bills will do just that. What are some of the key components of these bills? Under the proposed reforms we will establish Australia's first ever independent National Environmental Protection Agency. This will be a proud Labor legacy, delivering on an election commitment that was proudly campaigned for by ALP branch members. The newly-established National Environmental Protection Agency will be a strong independent regulator with a clear focus on ensuring better compliance with and stronger enforcement of Australia's new laws. It would exercise a range of powers independently of the minister such as compliance and enforcement of the laws and project conditions, and the auditing of state and territory processes for project assessments and approvals against new national environmental standards. It is a needed regulator that will ensure environmental protections. There will be reforms to allow the environment minister to meet the national environmental standards. These standards will set the boundaries for decisions to ensure they deliver improved environmental outcomes. Standards will protect the environment, give businesses clear rules and help decision-makers be fair and consistent. What this means on the ground is that we can get to work on protecting, conserving and restoring important environmental areas and species. We can truly make up for the environmental damage of the past—try and reverse what has happened under the Liberals' and Nationals' neglect. We'll support better decision-making for the future and help the public understand and comment on projects. Another area where this bill will make real and lasting change is in ensuring a net gain for our environment. This means that, on the bottom line, we are contributing positively to the environment. Where an organisation can't, there are other avenues to offset that impact. When we enter any of our national parks, we each make a pledge to take only memories and leave only footprints. It's a reminder of our place in this world: to tread lightly, to not damage. This message should be for all individual people and big corporations. If you can't leave the environment how you found it, it's only right you contribute in other ways to its sustainability. This bill will ensure that projects must leave the environment better off by introducing the concept of 'net gain' for environmental offsets. This is a shift from the current rules threshold, which is a 'no net loss' concept. This will shift the dial towards restoration, giving our native populations the opportunity to regenerate, recover and become more resilient. It means more steps towards improving our environment, not just accepting the way things are. We want to make renewable energy and sustainability the way of the future. This bill package recognises that a more efficient regulatory system is needed to enable better and faster decisions. More efficient and robust project assessments and approvals will allow us to better respond and deliver on national priorities, like the renewable energy transition and a Future Made in Australia. We're making strides in the area of renewables. Around half of all electricity in the national grid came from renewable sources in September 2025—the highest monthly rate on record. We are tackling emissions and are confident we have the policies in place to deliver on our ambitious 2030 emission reduction targets. We are also here fighting to get this bill passed and these environmental protections enshrined. We cannot allow for more division and inaction, and we cannot continue to delay. I stand here as a proud representative of my electorate, Cooper, whose people view the environment and the protection of our biodiversity as top of the agenda—our most pressing issue. Some parties have been arguing that the bill should contain a climate trigger. In his review, Graeme Samuel cautioned against trying to make the EPBC Act the mechanism to limit emissions directly. There is already legislation that limits emissions, called the safeguard mechanism. These bills, however, will require proponents to disclose their emissions and provide plans around how they will reduce their emissions in line with their safeguard mechanism obligation. These requirements, along with the establishment of an independent EPA and enforcement of the safeguard mechanism, will go a long way. In fact, Graeme Samuel has been publicly calling on the Greens and other parties to agree with this. The steps proposed in these bills are huge. The steps proposed in these bills are important. The steps proposed in this bill will go a long way to making a difference in protecting our environment now and into the future. We need to pass them now. We need to start that work right away. We cannot wait any longer. As I said earlier, there's always more to do, but those who wait for the final step, before we even start, end up taking no steps at all. We've seen this before and we are committed to not letting that happen again, because every day we delay is a day our environment is degrading. The government remains in communication with environment groups, and the environment movement, about what future steps we can take. I look forward to continuing to work with the minister and the environment movement, but at this exact moment I congratulate the minister, the government and the environment movement on developing these bills and taking the first steps to make change happen. For the environment, for the climate, for the future, I commend these bills to the House. 18:59 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise to speak on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. There is broad agreement that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or EPBC Act, has utterly failed to protect our environment for the past 25 years. We now have 19 ecosystems on the brink of collapse, and we are a global deforestation hotspot, along with Bolivia and Brazil. I want to begin by saying, sadly, that I cannot support the environmental reforms in these bills in their current form, because, quite simply, they do not guarantee protection for our nature. The EPBC Act is the one piece of national legislation that we have to protect our environment. It should be our nation's safeguard for the environment—the framework that ensures that our forests, rivers, oceans and wildlife are not irretrievably polluted and destroyed but protected for future generations. This package of reforms was intended to fix our national environment laws, but instead it risks entrenching the very weaknesses of the current EPBC Act that have allowed Australia's environment to decline so sharply. It is well understood that business needs greater certainty when it comes to project approvals. For Australia to meet our climate goals and unlock the enormous potential of renewable energy, we need clear, consistent and trusted environment laws. But right now many projects, including renewable energy projects, are being delayed or bogged down in confusion. Communities, investors and industry are all calling for the same thing: an approval process that is efficient, transparent and fair. Businesses need clarity on how decisions are made and they need to know that if they put forward a strong, environmentally sound proposal they'll get a fast 'yes' and if a project isn't up to scratch they'll get a fast 'no', so they can move on and refine their plans—not waste money—and invest with confidence elsewhere. That's what a well-functioning system delivers: speed, certainty and integrity. But this cannot come at the expense of nature. A healthy environment underpins a healthy economy. The two work hand in hand. So it is critical that this time around our nature protection laws do actually protect nature and that we don't see another 25 years of environmental neglect. Once ecosystems are destroyed, once species are extinct, no amount of economic activity or offsetting can bring them back. The people of Mackellar understand deeply the need to protect nature. They want their children and grandchildren to have the same connection to the coast, the creeks and the wild beauty that we've been lucky enough to grow up with. That's why they've asked me, as their representative, time and time again, to push for strong reforms to our national environment laws and to stop the destruction of our unique ecosystems, plants and animals that has occurred relentlessly in this country over the past few decades. They want a system that protects our environment and provides predictable, efficient decision-making for business. This is entirely possible, but these reforms are not it. I have a number of concerns about these reforms that I'll go through in detail. Let me turn to the first major concern: the new national interest exemption. Under this provision, the environment minister could approve a project even if it includes what are deemed to be unacceptable impacts to the environment, so long as the minister deems that it is in the national interest. That's an enormous power. It effectively lets the minister override the law and to do so without having to explain why. While the minister must generally publish a copy of the decision, together with the reasons, this accountability mechanism can itself be avoided when the minister believes it is in Australia's national interest to not provide these details. Ken Henry has warned that the national interest test in these reforms is likely to incentivise significant lobbying from developers, as they are all absolutely convinced that their project is in the national interest. The legislation cites projects relating to defence, security and national emergencies as the types of projects that might attract the exemption, and the environment minister has confirmed it could be used for something like a rare earth mine or a gas project if that was what the minister of the day decided. But at the end of the day the minister only needs to be satisfied that the action is in Australia's national interest. It doesn't take much imagination to think about how this could be exploited. In fact, earlier this year, then opposition leader Peter Dutton said he would use the existing national interest test to fast-track the North West Shelf gas extension—a project that the Australia Institute estimates would release around 90 million tonnes of emissions every year, equivalent to building 12 new coal-fired power stations. This isn't about whether you trust the current minister; it's about what a future government, perhaps one less committed to protecting our environment, could do with such sweeping discretion. That brings me to the next serious flaw—the bills' overreliance on ministerial discretion throughout. The Samuel review found that the existing EPBC Act insufficiently constrains decision-maker discretion, leading to uncertainty and poor environmental outcomes. Yet these reforms expand and entrench ministerial discretion rather than curtail it. Key decisions and tests throughout the bills depend on whether the minister is 'satisfied' that something is the case or whether an action is 'not inconsistent with' national environment standards. That kind of subjective language weakens the law. The new environmental standards, which are meant to be the centrepiece of this reform, are riddled with this type of language and subjectivity. For example, an approval must not be inconsistent with a standard but only if the minister is satisfied that's the case. The no-regression principle, which is meant to ensure standards don't go backwards, applies only to the satisfaction of the minister. The provision requiring approvals to pass the net-gain test, which is an important guardrail on the offset provisions, is subject to the satisfaction of the minister. There is also a high level of discretion available to the minister in providing for declarations or bilateral agreements to devolve powers to the states and territories, along with many other crucial checks and safeguards. Indeed, earlier this year, when there was a threat that the EPBC Act might actually be used to protect a species—the Maugean skate—the government stepped in and amended the bills. This is not the strong objective framework the Samuel review recommended. Next is the carve-outs and blanket exemptions. For decades, exemptions in the EPBC Act have allowed destructive activities to continue without federal assessment or approval, even when they impact threatened species or critical habitats. The most glaring examples are the regional forestry agreements, which exempt native forest logging from EPBC Act oversight and the continuous-use, or prior-authorisation, exemptions relied upon by proponents of agricultural land-clearing. Since the EPBC Act was introduced more than two decades ago, our environment has only declined further. Australia is now the only developed nation on the list of global deforestation hotspots. Our forests are being bulldozed at pace, pushing species like the koala, the greater glider and the grey-headed flying fox to the brink of extinction. While the government has said that the national standards will apply to forestry activities it's difficult to see how this will work in practice, given the proposed standards do not yet exist and given forestry activities are exempt from the act. I simply do not accept that native forest logging should be exempt from our national environment laws on the basis that state laws can be relied upon instead. You need look no further than my home state of New South Wales to see why. In New South Wales, environmental requirements have been repeatedly breached by the Forestry Corporation of NSW. In a judgement in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court last year, Justice Rachel Pepper noted the Forestry Corporation's lengthy record of prior convictions for environmental offences, including polluting a forest waterway, inadequate threatened species surveys, unlawful harvesting of hollow-bearing trees and harvesting in koala and rainforest habitat exclusion zones. That's why I'll be moving amendments to these bills—to repeal the exemption for the regional forestry agreements and the continuous-use exemption. Another concern is the devolution of federal powers to state and territory governments, particularly in relation to the water trigger. The bill empowers the minister to accredit state processes and enter into bilateral agreements so that states can assess and approve projects on behalf of the Commonwealth. While this could improve efficiency, it comes with an enormous risk. Of particular concern, the water trigger will be available for devolution despite being specifically excluded from bilateral approval agreements and regional plans in the current laws. Next, I'm deeply concerned regarding the approach to offsetting. There is no requirement for developers to avoid or reduce damage before moving to offsets under the mitigation hierarchy, only that the minister must consider the hierarchy. This will likely entrench offsetting as the default option rather than the last resort. The net gain test is designed to ensure that actions cannot be approved unless impacts on protected matters are offset through actions that result in a net gain. However, concerningly, this can be satisfied through the payment of a restoration contribution charge to the restoration contributions holder. This allows for habitat-destroying developments to be deemed to have a net gain on a protected matter despite the impact being irreversible. The proponent can simply pay into the fund and thereby bypass the true net gain test, and there are no provisions requiring adequate accounting for delivery of the net gain. The reform package also establishes a national environmental protection authority, NEPA, which is welcome in principle. But there is a glaring flaw. The government has chosen not to create a governing board, and there is no independent appointment process for the CEO. This is exactly the kind of political appointment risk I tried to address through my own 'ending jobs for mates' private member's bill, to ensure independent and transparent selection processes for key public roles. Without those safeguards, NEPA risks being just another arm of government rather than a truly independent watchdog. We've seen state based environmental regulators marred with this type of controversy. In New South Wales, the EPA was recently accused of bearing a report on lead contamination in children's blood to placate mining companies. In the Northern Territory, the EPA chair was involved in decisions on a major gas leak scandal without disclosing his paid role with an industry lobbying firm. In Western Australia, the EPA was forced to withdraw its 2019 emissions offset guidelines after intense pressure from the gas industry and the state government. When regulators appear to be bending to political or industry pressure, whether that bending is real or perceived, public confidence evaporates. If we want to rebuild trust, this regulator must be genuinely independent, properly resourced and protected from political meddling. Finally, we cannot talk about environmental protection in 2025 without talking about climate change. Yet these reforms studiously avoid it. Unsurprisingly, the government has again refused to include a climate trigger, a mechanism that would require assessment of a project's greenhouse gas emissions as part of environmental approvals. The International Court of Justice's recent advisory opinion confirmed that countries like Australia are bound by international law to assess and limit greenhouse gas emissions, including those from exported coal and gas. While the government argues that the safeguard mechanism already regulates emissions, this only applies after a project is operating. It doesn't stop new, high-polluting projects from being approved in the first place. In the last term alone, the government approved 27 new coal, oil and gas projects, with four new approvals this term. Their combined lifetime emissions are expected to exceed 6.5 billion tonnes of CO2. A reformed EPBC Act that ignores climate is a reform that fails to meet the moment. This reform is an opportunity, a once-in-a-generation chance to fix our broken system, restore trust and put nature at the heart of decision-making, while providing a more efficient process for business and investment. As it stands, the bill does not do that. It risks repeating the very mistakes that the Samuel review warned us about—too much discretion, too little accountability and too many loopholes. I urge the government to work with the crossbench, to listen to the experts and to strengthen this legislation so it genuinely delivers for our environment, our economy and future generations. 19:14 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga This is a landmark piece of legislation that represents the most significant overhaul of Australia's environmental laws in a generation. It is overdue. After our environment was neglected, ignored and left to degrade by those opposite, this is work that Labor attempted in our last term but that we could not get opposition or Greens support for in the Senate. We are now meeting the commitment we made—I certainly made this commitment to many of my constituents prior to the last election—to bring back to the parliament new laws to protect the environment. Our Labor government understands how critical these laws are, for our environment and the precious places and species we must protect and for the certainty needed by business and those looking to make necessary developments. While this bill, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, very clearly demonstrates that the Labor government understands the need to protect our environment and pass these laws, I'm yet to be convinced that those opposite understand it. These are some of the questions on my mind right now: Will the Leader of the Opposition stand up for our environment? Will she demonstrate her party's new-found capacity to listen, to learn the hard lessons and reflect the Australia from which they have become disconnected? Will she listen to Graeme Samuel—who she commissioned to do the report that these laws are based on—to Ken Henry or to the businesses urging her to support reform? Will the Greens political party finally join the government and pass these reforms to protect our environment, or will they once again hold out for the perfect and scupper the good? I want to pay tribute to the many groups and individuals who have campaigned hard for these reforms for many years, who have made and continue to make informed contributions. These are the people who understand the importance of getting this done. I just hope that the opposition and the Greens political party do too. This bill builds on the Albanese Labor government's broader agenda to protect and restore Australia's natural environment, and this is an agenda that stands in stark contrast to the inaction and neglect of those opposite. For nearly a decade the Liberals failed to act on climate change. They ignored the warnings of scientists, and they left Australia without a credible plan to safeguard our environment. They stalled renewable investment, cut environmental programs and oversaw worsening biodiversity loss. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S What's your point of order, Member for Goldstein? Mr Tim Wilson IMW Emissions went down under the former coalition government. They've gone up under the current government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S There's no point of order. Proceed, Member for Jagajaga. Ms THWAITES 282212 The member is clearly a little embarrassed about what is happening under his party at the moment. It seems unlikely that they will learn from these mistakes of the past and reverse direction. In fact, it looks like his colleagues are walking away from net zero. I understand that's probably a shame for the member for Goldstein, but he does not currently have the numbers, it seems. Good luck to him in his efforts to get them. Since 2022 our government has turned the page on that track record. We have passed strong laws to cut emissions and put Australia on the path to net zero by 2050, including strong 2035 reduction targets to get us there. We've committed to achieving 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, with more than 100 clean energy projects already underway. We've protected 95 million hectares of Australian land and ocean, an area almost the size of Germany, Italy and Norway combined. We've expanded marine parks around Macquarie Island and the Heard and McDonald islands. We've established Environment Information Australia, giving the public and business easier access to transparent environmental data. We've doubled funding for our national parks, including Kakadu and Uluru. We've invested $1.3 billion to expand the Indigenous Rangers Program, delivered $600 million to protect threatened species, and created the world's first nature repair market, unlocking private investment in environmental restoration. It is a strong record, but we know there is more to do, and that is why this bill is before the House. These reforms are the product of one of the most extensive consultation processes ever undertaken in the environmental policy space. As I said before, I want to pay tribute to the individuals, environment groups and business groups—the stakeholders—who have all engaged constructively in that process. Minister Watt and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water have conducted more than 100 meetings, forums and roundtables across the country. Of course, as I said, these reforms are built on the recommendations of the review conducted by Graeme Samuel: a review commissioned by those opposite—by the now leader of the opposition—but which, unfortunately, they could not follow through on. It's taken a Labor government to get this bill before the House. Under Labor, we're delivering the change that that review called for: modern, balanced and enforceable national environmental laws. We're delivering reforms that reflect the best available science, the most up-to-date policy thinking and the real-world feedback from those who live with the consequences of inaction on protecting our environment. This is something that people in my community in Jagajaga care deeply about. I'm particularly lucky, as are members of my community, to live in one of Melbourne's most biodiverse regions. It's home to bushland, wetlands and parklands—the lungs of our suburbs. Locals are passionate about the Yarra River, the Banyule Flats, the Warringal Parklands and the Darebin and Diamond creeks, and these are all areas where volunteers and community have been working for decades to protect habitat, restore native vegetation and preserve the wildlife that makes our area of Melbourne so special. I give a shout-out to community groups like Friends of Edendale farm, Friends of Yarra Flats Park, Darebin Creek Management Committee, Warringal Conservation Society, our local Landcare networks and many more, who have regularly contacted me both about this bill and about the need for stronger national laws to protect nature. The people who are contacting me are concerned about declining biodiversity, the loss of tree canopy and the impact of urban expansion on local waterways and ecosystems. These are the people who get up on weekends to plant trees, pick up rubbish and teach our kids about the importance of caring for country. Their passion and stewardship reflect the best of our community, and their message to me has been clear: they want stronger, fairer and more effective environmental laws. Throughout the development of this bill, I've been proud to make sure that their voices have been part of the consideration that has gone into drafting. This bill does deliver clear standards, transparent decision-making and a federal EPA that can take action where breaches occur. It ensures that people who live alongside our natural areas, those who know them best, have confidence that they will be protected for the future. The bill is built on three key pillars: stronger environmental protection and restoration, more efficient and robust project assessments, and greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making. At its heart, this reform will create Australia's first independent, national environmental protection agency: a tough, science based regulator to enforce one clear set of national rules. This will mean that, when environmental harm occurs, there will be consequences—real ones—with no more loopholes and no more shifting blame between levels of government. There'll be a genuine cop on the beat with the authority to investigate, audit and stop harmful environmental activities before they do permanent damage. The need for these laws could not be clearer. Every day of delay in updating these laws is damaging our environment and costing business time and money. The average time it takes to approve a major project has more than doubled since 2004. Meanwhile, Australia's native species continue to decline at alarming rates, and habitat destruction remains one of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss. Communities see developers fast-tracked while local concerns are sidelined. They see companies breach environmental conditions and face little or no consequence. And they have seen, for too long, governments, such as those from the other side, pass responsibility from one level to another while the environment pays the price. Our current system is fragmented, outdated and failing both the environment and business. So that is why this bill is so important: to modernise the act, to streamline approvals and to bring consistency, transparency and accountability to a process that, in too many cases, has lost public trust. The federal environmental protection agency, an independent national watchdog with strong powers, will have the ability to audit state and territory approval processes, issue stop-work orders to halt damaging activity, impose stronger penalties on repeat offenders and give communities a clear way to report breaches and see real action taken. The EPA will operate independently of political pressure. It will publish data on environmental outcomes, monitor compliance and help ensure that environmental decisions are based on evidence, not influence. The bill also defines what constitutes unacceptable environmental impacts so that projects causing irreversible damage cannot be approved. A new offsets regime will ensure that, where environmental impacts cannot be avoided, developers must deliver measurable and lasting benefits elsewhere. This achieves a net gain for nature rather than simply offset losses. Importantly, bioregional and regional planning will provide greater clarity for communities and investors alike. These plans will identify no-go zones, areas of critical habitat, high-conservation value and cultural significance that must be protected while guiding responsible development to areas where environmental impacts can be minimised. This approach balances protection and progress. It supports environmental certainty and investment and business confidence at the same time. Strong and clear boundaries, formal rules and no room for ambiguity: our environment deserves nothing less. We have too many precious places and too many precious species still being lost in this country. It's on all of us in here to make sure that we do all that we can to end that loss. That means working together to pass these laws. These rules will also improve efficiency. They will cut red tape for business by removing duplication of Commonwealth and state processes. They will create clear and consistent national standards and save businesses time and money while improving outcomes for nature. The Productivity Commission estimates that these reforms could deliver up to $7 billion in economic benefits through faster and more-efficient approvals. That's a win for business, it's a win for workers and it's a clear win for our environment. This bill represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. As I said, it reflects the commitment our government made to voters at the last election to get this done. We are very focused on restoring integrity to environmental decision-making. We want to strengthen protection for our most precious ecosystems. We want to ensure that those who damage the environment are held to account. We do all of that with this bill. We are also conscious that we cannot do it alone. For these reforms to be successful, we will need support from the Liberals or we will need support from the Greens. I say to the members of this parliament: this is our chance to do this once-in-a-generation reform. This is our chance to halt the loss that we have seen—the loss of biodiversity and the loss of species, which is unacceptable—and to work together to protect our environment. I started with a series of questions about the attitudes of those opposite and their commitment to this bill. Those questions remain but, as we debate the bill in this House, we have before us the opportunity for those opposite to answer them—and in fact to answer them positively for nature, to answer them positively for our environment for generations to come, and to answer them positively for business and for the work that needs to happen to continue to develop the infrastructure that our country needs. There is an opportunity here for our environment and for this parliament to do the work that has been far too long in coming—to do the work that it takes Labor governments to do—and to work with passionate advocates who have continued to stand up for our environment and who have worked with us on a set of reforms that, while long overdue, will deliver real gains for our environment. It's now over to this parliament to do the necessary work to make sure that what's been in train for so long, since Graeme Samuel started his review, which is now reflected in these bills, becomes a reality for our environment, for our country and for the future of biodiversity in our country. ADJOURNMENT 71 ADJOURNMENT Energy 71 19:29 Mr JOYCE e5d New England There are a lot of scandals that have happened in our time that we should be fully aware of. One of the big ones I've always loved is the tulip mania, where, back in Europe, they decided they could run an economy on tulips. It made splendid sense. They found these tulips. I think they'd discovered them in the salt in Istanbul. They were very rare and very precious, and they decided they could run the Dutch economy on them—right up until they worked out they could propagate them and the economy almost collapsed. Then, of course, we had the South Sea bubble. They were trying to move slaves into South America. The Portuguese and the Spanish went to war against each other and they couldn't move slaves, so they thought that they'd sell shares in themselves instead—they would buy and sell themselves. That worked out very well. It was a Ponzi scheme, and it almost collapsed the British economy. A more relevant one is the Australian version, of course. They had this football team called the South Queensland Crushers. They had three seasons and came dead last in two of them. It was also an incredible failure, but you can go round and still find people who are nostalgic about it, sitting around with warm beers, cold pies and lukewarm savs. They've dug up old jerseys of the South Queensland Crushers and fascinate themselves with stories about themselves. You'll still find, residing in some dark cave, those moments of illuminating a faux glory. I think the most important one was the Enron debacle. Enron had this incredible idea that, through a form of dodgy accounting, they would pump up their share price and pump up the value of the company. After it was discovered that they were just ripping the show off, their share price went from about $95 down to $1 and 4,000 people lost their job. The only good thing about Enron was that it could be encompassed within a company, but we're doing the Enron scam to the whole of Australia. It's called intermittent power. The trouble with the intermittent power scandal is that, unlike Enron, which could be ring fenced, this is going to bring devastation to the whole of the Australian economy in the most incredible form that you've never seen before. We're already seeing it. People say, 'We've got the plans for how power prices are going to go down,' and we're supposed to believe them because the modelling says so. There's more modelling that Milan. The issue is, of course, that those who really have their heads screwed on—such as Rio Tinto, who have billions of dollars at stake and really put the effort into assessing whether we've got a good power policy or not—are leaving Australia. They're going. They're giving up on us, like the Kwinana refinery, like the oil refineries, like the plastics industry and like the urea industry. When this hits the deck—and it will—more than 4,000 people are going to lose their job. We've had royal commissions into all manner of things, but the day will come when there will be a royal commission into this, and I call for that to happen as quickly as possible. I say that as a precursor, as a warning, to all those people doing slippery little deals in the background—sneaky deals with the capacity investment schemes, secret things that they think no-one will ever find out about. There are people with mates in certain areas talking to other mates in certain areas, bringing them a great return which you can never get to the bottom of. You can never get to the bottom of what people are earning in the capacity investment schemes. It's commercial in confidence, and, even when you go to the budget papers, they're not for publication. The day will come when there will be a royal commission into these things, and I say to those people now: I hope you're enjoying your time, because the time will come when you will be called before an inquiry. You'll be made to swear on the Bible or make an oath of affirmation, and you will have to tell the truth about exactly who you knew, how you came about the windfall gain you got and what the process was behind it. That will be an interesting day, I assure you. Before robodebt no-one thought there would be a royal commission. Before the pink batts no-one thought there would be a royal commission. There have been so many things where no-one ever thought the royal commission was coming. I'm giving you a little bit of forewarning: it is coming. You will be called, and you'd better have the answers. Liverpool City Council 72 19:34 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Councils are the third tier of our important democracy in this country. They serve our communities every day and are the conduit for community activities. They provide and maintain sporting grounds, playgrounds and green spaces, and they deliver initiatives to build community cohesion and build capacity. They should also be focused on fixing roads, collecting rubbish and using the rates, grants and other income they collect to do this with integrity, governance and equity. Leadership is essential. Delivery is essential. As a former councillor, I had hoped that, after the council elections in September 2024 and the confirmation of a substantive CEO earlier this year, Liverpool council would start to be that council, a council that would start providing the community with what it had been craving: delivery and leadership. Unfortunately, I have been further disappointed, and, given that the number of inquiries about Liverpool council my office deals with is actually double the number of any other type of inquiry my office gets, it seems the residents of Werriwa agree. This council built a completely inappropriate 'diamond-about' instead of providing traffic solutions that were fit for purpose. The ratepayers of Liverpool deserve delivery the first time, without projects having to be removed and redone. In June this year, the council constructed several 'roundabouts' on Fifteenth Avenue. That description suggests they should be round, or at least oval, to assist with the flow of traffic. Instead of this, they actually hindered the flow of traffic because trucks and buses need to do three-point turns around them, slowing traffic and causing hazards. The roundabouts lasted 48 hours before they were removed, causing further damage to the roads. Thankfully, I didn't hear of any serious injuries caused by accidents at these spots, but I fear that's far more because of the skill and patience of Liverpool drivers than anything else. I am grateful that the $1 billion announcement made by the Albanese and Minns government in January this year for the upgrade of Fifteenth Avenue, where these roundabouts were located, will be delivered by the New South Wales government. My colleague the member for Leppington and I have spoken to Minister Aitchison, the New South Wales Minister for Roads, on numerous occasions about the commitment. I am pleased to say that early works on the safety upgrades to the road commenced in August, and they will provide a third lane added to Cow Pasture Road between Fifteenth Avenue and the M7, reducing weaving and congestion. There will also be improvements to pedestrian safety, speed limits and line markings. In October 2022, confirmation was provided to Liverpool council for $6 million as an election commitment to extend Middleton Drive, giving options for the residents of Middleton Grange. Three years later, the road is still being planned, and they hope that construction will be completed sometime in 2026. Also, in MYEFO last year, Liverpool council were provided with extra funds for the upgrade of Kurrajong and Beech Roads at the intersection with Lyn Parade. The commitment from the federal government is $6.9 million and fully funds this upgrade, improving safety for traffic and pedestrians and easing congestion. The community needs this project to be delivered as soon as possible, along with the signalisation of the intersection of Mowbray Street and Kurrajong Road. Last year, the council received $15 million of grant funding to develop a new park in Austral. Unfortunately, planning and preparation work on this project did not get underway until April this year, and construction is unlikely to start until early next year. I've again written to the CEO to advocate for this to be provided as soon as possible. The suburb of Austral has seen so much change over recent years and, as in many new housing estates, the provision of footpaths, parks and other amenities is sadly lacking. Liverpool council also received more than $2 million from the New South Wales and federal governments to redevelop Pye Hill Reserve at Cecil Hills, but, because of the discovery of asbestos in the construction of the park, it's yet to be officially opened and is not available for use—another disappointment for the people of Liverpool. I am seeking further updates from Liverpool council and the CEO, and I'll continue to fight for the constituents in the electorate of Werriwa to ensure that the grants and money that have been provided to it are used by council as efficiently and quickly as possible. Tasmania 73 19:39 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark By now, most people probably know of my deep frustration with the way the Tasmanian government is stuffing up seemingly every aspect of running the state. I'm not alone, as evidenced by the community reaction to a relevant video I posted on social media earlier this year, which remains my most viewed to date and which still prompts people to stop me in the street to share their agreement with what I had to say. Yet underlying my frustration is the fact that Tasmania has everything it needs to be the jewel in Australia's crown. For a start, we have some of the cleanest air in the world, and, while that might sound like something Tasmanians say with a wink, it's a fact, verified and monitored by the CSIRO. Moreover, we are the gateway to Antarctica, and we have a stunning natural environment, rich Aboriginal history and a quality of life that could be the envy of the nation. Frankly, our world-class wineries, beaches, hikes, dining and creative industries make us small but especially mighty, and it's no wonder that people flock there to experience it. Our tourism appeal in particular is undeniable, as evidenced by the fact that, this year, the Conde Nast Traveller 2025 readers' choice awards crowned Hobart as the 10th-best small city in the world—the only city in Australia to make the cut. And that recognition has been echoed elsewhere. For example, Expedia's Unpack '26: the trends in travel report named Hobart one of its destinations of the year, noting a 25 per cent increase in searches for Hobart compared with last year. No wonder a mammoth 1.348 million visitors came to our island in the year ending June 2025. I understand that that may not sound like a lot to mainlanders, but that is more than double the number of people who call the island home. In short, the secret is out. People know there's something special about Tasmania and are willing to spend their time, money and effort to experience it for themselves. But there's more. In my electorate of Clark, we are home to world-leading innovation at Incat, where a team of designers, engineers and technicians have just built and launched the world's largest battery electric vessel. Hull 096, named China Zorrilla, at 130 metres long is the largest electric vehicle ever constructed and will carry up to 2,100 passengers and 225 vehicles. The ambition doesn't stop there. Incat is also one of the nation's largest single-site employers of apprentices and is expanding its operations, with the goal of becoming the global centre of excellence for sustainable large-vessel manufacturing. On the topic of sustainability, the University of Tasmania has been recognised again for its global leadership, ranking first in the world for climate action for the fourth year running, according to the Times Higher Education impact rankings. This outstanding achievement reflects the university's long-term commitment to meaningful climate action, from being certified carbon-neutral since 2016 and divesting from fossil fuel investments in 2021 to ongoing prioritisation of investments that support the UN Sustainable Development Goals. I could go on, but, as I have only five minutes, I've chosen to highlight just these three areas, which have been announced this year, demonstrating the unique strengths of our environment, our people and our way of life. Indeed, I meet a plethora of constituents, who have either grown up in Tasmania or have chosen to build their lives there, who have unending enthusiasm to fulfil Tasmania's rightful role as the jewel in Australia's crown. So, despite the state government's best efforts, Tasmania continues to punch well above its weight. Yes, sure we've got lots of challenges—which almost inevitably can be traced back to the incompetent state government and underperforming local governments. Some of those challenges are getting a lot of publicity, as they should, like the debacle with the new Spirit of Tasmania ferries that are three years late and half a billion dollars over budget, and the proposed third AFL stadium, which we can't afford and don't need and which most people don't want. Sure, Tasmania is as much, or more, affected by the usual challenges confronting communities right around Australia, like poor health care, underfunded public schools and choking traffic congestion. But those things come and go. What don't and won't are Tasmania's precious human and environmental capital and economic potential. So, as they say, come down for air. Greek Language in Australia 74 19:44 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise today to speak about a recent report and research paper that was completed in my office by Dimity Vlahos, who was part of the Australian National Internships Program, better known as ANIP, run by the ANU. The research paper that she did for us is titled 'Cultivating the Greek language within the Australian diaspora: the current landscape, barriers and frameworks'. I seek leave to table the report. Leave granted. Mr GEORGANAS DZY I thank the member for Goldstein for allowing the report to be tabled. I'd like to thank Dimity Vlahos for putting together the report and the research. Her unique research aimed to address concerns around the decreasing usage of Greek language between generations here in Australia, and the findings of her report are extremely valuable for all of us here in parliament that have an interest in languages and provide evidence based research. Dimity is an applied data analysis student in her final year at the ANU and has been great to have around the office doing this research. Her findings are pretty clear: Greek-Australian households in Australia are increasingly losing their bilingualism, with a high proportion of second- and third-generation Greek Australians speaking English only. However, around 21 per cent of the third generation maintain their Greek language. The report attributes this success to the high level of support in different communities through various Greek community groups and language schools, and there are multiple language schools within each state and territory. In my own state of South Australia, there are seven language schools with 18 classes that run weekly, and I'm aware of a couple in the member for Boothby's electorate as well. She's from South Australia. These are supported by community language associations, which receive funding from both state and federal governments. Arguably, the most important finding in this research is that better support for the Greek language needs to come alongside better support for all languages in Australia. Currently, there's inconsistency in the language education system between states and different jurisdictions, and this has led to barriers not only for modern Greek but for all languages. As a proud multicultural nation, we need to better embrace and support our diverse languages. The report and research paper that Ms Vlahos has done shows the immense value of multilingualism. When I speak to other communities in my electorate, like the Italian community, they're all facing the same issue: the loss of their mother tongue in the second, third and fourth generations. Monolingualism is an economic disadvantage in both international and domestic markets. A loss of language fluency is equivalent to a loss of human capital. It's something that we have. We should cherish it and support it. That will only assist us. It'll assist us in our economy, in our partnerships with other nations et cetera. A loss of language fluency, as I said, is equivalent to a loss of human capital. The research paper also outlines how multilingualism increases social cohesion in our community through giving individuals a stronger sense of identity and belonging. Now more than ever, we need to support connection between all Australians. This paper, here in this parliament, through this ANU intern program, as the first of its kind, provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of the Greek language in Australia. It is extended by evidence based solutions to revitalise the Greek language and support all languages in our multicultural society. Ms Vlahos did intense research to the point where she actually did comparisons of other nations where there have been mass migration influxes, like Canada and the US. One thing that we have got to report that is very positive is that Australia, in maintaining its Greek language, is doing far better than Canada, the US and many other places. That was something positive in the report. There are also differences in the United States. Greek migration has been going since the 1800s, so that loss of connectivity is far greater than it is here. I'm very proud of Dimity. Those of you that have not had an intern in your office, please do so. It's a great experience for both yourself and the student. Manufacturing Industry 74 19:49 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell Australians can still make many things, and it's vital that we do have a manufacturing future in this country, but we have to note in this House that manufacturing's share of our economy has collapsed to just 5.4 per cent, the lowest in our entire history. In the 1970s, it was 15 per cent. Every month brings another shocking closure of the means of production in this country that are vital to sustaining any society. Alcoa's Kwinana refinery, 220 jobs, is gone, as well as all the business that goes on. Price Plastics, after 40 years of operation, is gone. Oceania Glass, Australia's only architectural glassmaker, after 169 years in business, is gone. Our battery pioneers, Redflow and Energy Renaissance, are all gone, all under Labor's watch. We have to ask: why are so many businesses collapsing in manufacturing and industry in Australia today? A combination of high energy prices—the vital necessity of all manufacturing, energy; taxation; regulation; and our industrial relations environment in Australia. In Australia we can't compete on wages. We have the world's highest wages. You wouldn't hear about that from the government sometimes, but they are the world's highest wages. They will never be competed on. We also have the world's highest costs in regulation and doing business. We have very high costs now, the only competitive advantage that manufacturing used to have, for energy. In many cases, they're doubling—when these contracts come off—in cost. It's an input cost sometimes with heavy industry, with 40 per cent of the input cost doubling in price in one hit. If Labor can't understand that its Future Made in Australia program is now heavily in danger of becoming a future bailed out in Australia, then they're not paying attention. The bailouts are in the billions. There have been four major bailouts this year. We had historic Whyalla bailed out, Glencore's facilities, Nyrstar and recently Tomago, which is now saying it will wind up in Australia. This was what the Labor Party said would not happen under its clean energy transition. It is happening. Australians know it's happening. They are losing their jobs. Communities know, when they see the means of production shutting down, it's serious for Australians. Under Labor we know electricity prices are now up 40 per cent, never mind this cheaper energy we hear about from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy every day—the free energy that we're going to get for an hour if we turn on the washing machine. Electricity prices are up 40 per cent. Australian industry is paying $10.30 a gigajoule for gas. Competitors in the US pay only $3. It's three times as much. In Qatar, it's $2.20. When you couple that with the highest corporate tax rates for Australian businesses and people doing business in Australia—not just in the region, but one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world—there are no competitive advantages in Australia. This government is living in fantasy land if we think the taxpayer can then subsidise or bail out people when we've made the input costs the highest in the world. When you think about what the government's agenda is, their productivity summit, their roundtable, completely squibbed the issue of productivity. We can't grow our way out of something when we don't acknowledge that productivity is the fundamental problem facing the economy. Government spending is growing at four times the rate of the economy. We can't spend our way into a productive situation for industry. But Labor's response has been to throw more government money at the problem. When you think about the $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money for Whyalla, $135 million for Nyrstar's smelters and $600 million for the Mount Isa copper smelter, how long can this sustainably go on? Even on the public purse, it can't go on. Every dollar that is taxed and raised and spent by the government takes private capital out of the economy. That's the way capital works. So the government simply can't afford to underwrite all these facilities for much longer. Their $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia fund is fast running out. The future bailed out in Australia is here with us, and the money will run out very quickly. The one thing this Labor government will not do is lower the cost of doing business in Australia. Lower the input costs for business. Make the products and the manufacturing cheaper. Why not, and why is this government pursuing an endlessly increasing set of input costs and energy costs, driving industry and manufacturing offshore? Albanese Government 75 19:54 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Yesterday marked six months since the re-election of the Albanese Labor government. We went to the election with a suite of policies and proposals, and already we've hit the ground running. In just six months we've set an ambitious and achievable climate target of 62 to 70 per cent emissions reduction by 2035, helping us deliver net zero by 2050. Over 111 large-scale renewable projects have already been approved—enough to power 13 million homes—and a further 29 projects are in the pipeline for approval. We've made it easier for first home buyers to purchase a home by expanding the Home Guarantee Scheme. This means first home buyers need only a five per cent deposit to get out of the rental market and into the property market, starting to build their own equity instead of paying someone else's mortgage. We've cut HECS debts by 20 per cent, and over the next couple of weeks those with HECS debts will start getting messages from the ATO telling them the 20 per cent reduction has been applied to their debt. We passed Baby Priya's bill, which enables parents experiencing the worst moment of their life—the stillbirth or death of a baby—to have the time and space to grieve before returning to work. We legislated to protect penalty and overtime rates—hard to believe this was necessary, but apparently it was. If you work irregular, unsociable or long hours, you should be paid for the inconvenience and impact it has on your life. This is the Australian way of fair work. We introduced the home battery subsidy scheme, and, to date, in the less than four months since it has become operational, over 110,000 home batteries have been installed. That's over 110,000 Australian homes now enjoying cheap or free electricity. Today we announced the Solar Sharer scheme. Because of the amazing uptake of solar panels and batteries and renewables generally, electricity has a negative price in the middle of the day. The Solar Sharer scheme will enable people in my home state of South Australia, New South Wales and South-East Queensland to enjoy three hours of free electricity in the middle of the day, starting 1 July next year. Whether you have solar panels or not, you can also benefit from the cheapest form of electricity—renewables. We've delivered reform to our aged-care system, ensuring dignity for older Australians. We know the aged-care system has not been fit for purpose for a long time. We have an ageing population, with more and more demand on aged-care and home supports, yet no new beds have been built in years. The new Aged Care Act puts the older person at the centre of the system with a rights based system and ensures aged care will be sustainable in the future. We strengthened Medicare with the largest-ever investment of $8.5 billion to ensure nine out of 10 GP visits are bulk-billed by 2030. This started on 1 November, and over a thousand GP practices across the country have signed up already to be fully bulk-billing. I'm aware of at least four in Boothby, and that's in addition to those who were previously bulk-billing. We passed legislation to ensure that, from 1 January, people will only pay $25 for a prescription on the PBS. There's not much point in getting a prescription if you can't afford to fill it and take the medicine regularly. We've listed more contraceptives on the PBS so women have more choice. Today we've been debating our reforms to the EPBC Act—groundbreaking reforms that deliver on all the recommendations of the 2020 Samuel review. They establish a national environmental protection agency and reform the broken offsets mechanism, which I know so many of my local constituents in Boothby have raised concerns with me about. These bills will deliver protection for the environment, fast decisions and certainty for business, industry, developers and investors. It's received the approval of Professor Samuel and former secretary of the Treasury Ken Henry. Locally we've opened the redeveloped Marino Community Hall—fantastic. We've opened the on-off ramp at Majors Road, and the tram overpasses are progressing at pace. A couple of weeks ago the tunnel borer for the North-South Corridor arrived. Australians voted for a government with vision and purpose, a government with a proven track record of delivering for the Australian people. Australians voted for a government that would listen and deliver, and, six months on, that's exactly what we're doing. BILLS 76 BILLS Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025 76

Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025

National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025

Environment Information Australia Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025

Second Reading 76 20:00 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee This bill, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, and the related bills come as we grapple as a nation with tumbling productivity. Under Labor productivity is down five per cent. Green tape has been identified as a major impediment to major projects going ahead. On this side of the House we are concerned this bill package is introducing even more green tape, not less. I'll talk further about productivity in a moment, but I want to begin by talking about what the Nationals put forward on Sunday, just days ago, as sensible energy and, in turn, environmental policy. As part of our proposal for cheaper, fairer and better energy, we will do environmental stewardship our way. We will reward landholders for regenerating their land. We will strengthen Australians' connection to nature through use, not locking farmers out. We will expand access to nature for recreation, hunting and fishing. We will empower local communities to lead real environmental action. The Nationals will bring back the Emissions Reduction Fund, which rewarded farmers, landowners, communities and industries for finding smart ways to cut emissions, such as planting trees and improving soil. The potential to store carbon through these initiatives is significant and can alleviate the burden of our energy system to reach better environmental outcomes. We all know Labor can't reach their 2030, 2035 or 2050 emissions reduction targets—it's fantasy. Labor are throwing regional Australia under the bus so the Prime Minister and the climate change minister can strut at an international climate conference. There's no problem for Aussies at home, apparently. Those opposite like to paint regional Australians as dopey, but I surveyed over 5,000 of my Mallee electorate voters, and they have worked this government out. A total of 67 per cent of them oppose net zero by 2050, while 82 per cent do not want to pay more than $50 a year for it. Well, what they don't understand is that they're already paying far more than that every year. Net zero has been a drag on our productivity because energy is the economy—we keep saying it. It is not the cheapest form of electricity, and a rapidly growing number of Australians know it. On productivity, today the Reserve Bank of Australia kept interest rates on hold and we saw the RBA recently downgrade its productivity estimates to 0.7 per cent a year, rather than one per cent. The RBA advice from August, which they put in bold type, said: Productivity is the key driver of growth in living standards over time. The cry I hear all the time from every sector is to 'please reduce red and green tape'. Yet this bill package comes with pages that are double the size of this year's budget papers. Can you imagine? Is it workable or does it create a lawyer's picnic—or, let's face it, a banquet—where lawfare already bogs down our productive economy? It's a rhetorical question. We're also being asked to debate this bill package today, despite an approximate 1,500 pages to consider, and a bill introduced on 29 October, just six days ago. The government wants this bill package through this House and passed by the end of the year, even though a Senate inquiry is underway and will not report until March 2026. Just to be clear, we have one week and two days left of sitting. In my electorate of Mallee, I've had to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face that farmers are environmentalists. They care about their local environment. They are not the villains that others make them out to be in the environment debate. Concerning this package of bills, on 30 October the National Farmers' Federation said: Farmers manage more than half of Australia's landmass. They live and breathe environmental stewardship every day … Their budget depends on it. The welfare of their animals depends on it. Their crops depend on it. In fact, farmers and regional community members have come to me very upset about the destruction of migratory bird, snake and other habitats—in the name of what? Saving the planet, would you believe! When it comes to the environment in Mallee, we have seen the environment thrown under the bus because of Labor's reckless renewables-only energy approach to reach unattainable energy targets, creating immense environmental, social and economic harm—and I've spoken to two farmers this evening about this very fact. In my home state of Victoria, in the electorate of Mallee, we have seen community concerns about the environment tossed to one side because the Allan Labor government—who are delusional about the future of gas in our energy mix—claim there's no gas onshore. They gaslight Victorians that it's renewables or bust. It isn't. And who's busting under Labor? It's regional Australians, their concerns about the environment set to one side, with the minister wielding enhanced powers to sideline proper planning processes in order to force transmission lines, wind turbines and blanket solar panels onto regional communities. And that's without adding in mining. I refer again to the NFF statement on 30 October. They say: Concepts like bioregional planning, offsets, net gain and 'unacceptable impact' tests need to be properly explained and practically tested. Otherwise, we risk creating confusion and unintended consequences. Further, we are very concerned about fast-tracking renewables, critical minerals or housing developments that could target agricultural land. Any push for projects impacting agriculture must come with genuine consultation with farmers and regional communities. We must get the balance right between achieving environmental outcomes, social licence and keeping farmland in production. Well, how sensible is that! I want to zero in on key phrases there that get lip-service from those opposite: social licence and genuine consultation. Labor's track record on this front is absolutely abysmal. Labor's version of consultation on their reckless rollout of renewables is a toot of the horn, if you're lucky, before the policy bulldozer comes rolling through your gate and onto your property—and farmers in my electorate know this. Make no mistake. We need to reform the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. As a coalition of parties that represents and listens to regional committees, small businesses and Australian businesses, the coalition are the best agents to reform the act. That's why, when she was Minister for the Environment, the now leader of the opposition commissioned the Samuel review in 2020—to frame the debate. The home truths about the need to reform environmental laws in the name of productivity and jobs have claimed one minister, Minister Plibersek, and now have the current minister for the environment and water, Minister Watt, hoping he doesn't get rolled by a Labor premier like Premier Cook in Western Australia—as his predecessor did. I was in Western Australia last month, and, let me tell you, they are very happy that the resources industry is getting a fair go. A woman in Broome, quite unprompted, urged me to crack on with Woodside opening up development in the state. She believes it will deliver more jobs and opportunities for all Western Australians. I have to add that we also have a serious fuel security problem. Productivity is one thing; our national security is another, and that is why a workable, national interest test through this legislation is critical. Australia's fuel reserves are critically low, with a reported 28 days of petrol left, according to reports last month, and just one months worth of jet fuel or diesel in storage. Leaving aside the existing contractual arrangements for fuel exports, we need to ensure we have a domestic fuel supply chain. Much as Minister Bowen might cross his fingers and hope otherwise while he throws eye-watering amounts of subsidies at Australians who can already afford to buy an EV, the reality is EV take-up targets will not be met. Labor are absolutely hopeless at picking winners. Consumer demand is not enticed by the subsidies. They want hybrids or diesel vehicles, particularly the latter in regional Australia. We need to fully investigate biofuels, not just for our aviation sector but as a potential addition or even substitute for petrol or diesel. Tractors, harvesters, mining machinery and many more types of productivity-driving machinery cannot abide the glorious coming of Bowen's batteries. Productivity depends on fuel, and we have dangerously small amounts of it on shore. Coalition governments understand productivity and job creation, and the resources sector is the economic golden goose in Western Australia that delivers them marvellous royalties and relative economic security. The construction on the Burrup Peninsula is a marvel to see, and it's an economic miracle that development has proceeded given the lawfare engaged in by groups like the disgraced Environmental Defenders Office, which Labor to this day continues to fund with taxpayer money. What a disgrace—an estimated $15 million by the end of this decade. Labor has not fully investigated the significant funding that the EDO receives from donors around the world and whether its connections to any of a vast network of international donors have breached Australia's foreign interference laws. In January 2024, the Federal Court outed the EDO for its conduct and activities in a Federal Court case relating to Santos's pursuit of its Barossa gas pipeline project—the infamous songlines case. Justice Natalie Charlesworth found that the EDO's legal team disgracefully manipulated and coached a number of witnesses and fabricated evidence in the case, and their claims were so lacking in integrity that no weight could be placed on them. Given Labor's form with the EDO, it is a worry that it might enable a potentially activist new National Environmental Protection Agency, if the vetting process isn't up to scratch, to be unaccountable to the minister. As one major stakeholder told me on Friday, constant unjustified lawfare is the No. 1 enemy of industry, with endless lawsuits and stop-work orders making industry unviable. We need to be vigilant when the prospect is a Labor-Greens slapdash deal before Christmas. The last thing Australian productivity and job-creating businesses need is more green tape, not less. On this Melbourne Cup Day, Labor has a shocking record for picking winners, and I won't apologise for holding this Labor government accountable so we get this right in the national interest. The last thing Australia needs is for Labor to claim they have a winner because they hobbled the productivity horses. Basically, this legislation can only be described as a 6-7. 20:12 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton My electorate of Moreton is home to some areas of absolutely outstanding natural beauty and diverse habitats. The Brisbane River, known locally and affectionately as the Brown Snake, meanders its way past Oxley, Corinda, Sherwood, Graceville, Chelmer, Tennyson, Yeronga and Fairfield, supporting a variety of freshwater, estuarine and marine-tolerant fish. There are beautiful parks—like the Sherwood Arboretum, one of only three botanic gardens in our city—dotted along the river's route, many of them currently adorned with jacarandas. Soon, poincianas will cover the parks with a blaze of red. A bit further afield, the Archerfield Wetlands encompass 150 hectares of eucalypt forest, open grassland, fresh water, wetlands and creeks. The federal government are providing funding to rehabilitate these habitats after decades and decades of industrial use, and they now support over 170 different bird species. Another of my favourite places to visit is Oxley Creek Common. There are four kilometres of walking tracks where, if you're lucky, you can spot some unique bird species such as the magpie goose or the black necked stork. And, of course, there is Toohey Forest. Toohey Forest is home to a diverse range of wildlife, from koalas and echidnas to wallabies, frogs and reptiles. Work on the federally funded fauna crossing—$3 million to a fauna crossing—is due to start by the end of the year. I'm delighted that this will help wildlife move safely between habitat areas within the forest. Being outdoors and enjoying our green spaces is core to the Australian way of life. It's core to who we are. It's core to our family memories. It's core to our future. And I am certain that this is something that all of us in this place want future generations to enjoy. We know that to make this possible we need environmental law reform, and we need it now. That is what the Albanese Labor government's suite of environmental protection reform bills is focused on. We need to ensure that we deliver stronger protection of the environment while balancing the requirements of efficiency, housing and renewables. Five years ago Professor Graeme Samuel, commissioned by the Leader of the Opposition, led an independent review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This bill addresses the critical issues that were identified by Professor Samuel in his report—critical issues that were ignored by the opposition when the report was handed down. The focus areas are stronger environmental protections, more-efficient project assessments, and increased accountability and transparency around that decision-making process. These are the areas where it is clear that the current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is failing. It is not meeting the needs of the environment, it is not meeting the needs of business and it is not meeting the needs of our community. It is an outdated piece of legislation. It's over 20 years old, and it is no longer fit for the purpose for which it was originally created. That is why it needs reform. This bill is all about better outcomes for the environment and faster decision-making. Fixing these issues will help us advance key national priorities, including protecting the environment, building more homes, creating more jobs, transitioning efficiently to renewables and achieving economic prosperity while doing it. Surely these are priorities that the opposition and the Greens can get behind, especially after the feedback they received in May from the Australian people—voters who were tired of legislation being blocked, voters who don't want to see this bill split, voters who want to see a sensible balance and voters who want action on the environment and on housing and on future prosperity. As Professor Samuel recently said of the coalition's posturing: It's bitterly disappointing because it says to me there are potentially political games being played, or posturing, which we should be putting aside. When it comes to political games, we know where that road leads. We've seen this movie before. We know what the outcome will be, because we saw it with the CPRS when the Greens and the coalition teamed up. We saw it in the last parliament, with the EPA, when the Greens and the coalition teamed up. It's been five long years since the Samuel report was handed down, and it hasn't been able to go through the parliament yet, because of the political games that Professor Samuel himself is so concerned about. This is the opportunity to change that history. This is the opportunity to take action. This is the opportunity to make a change that is real and to make a change that will make a difference. This is the opportunity not to block, not to play politics, but just to do something about it. What this bill means in practice is seeing more environmental protections and more restoration of critical national habitats while benefiting from more transparent and efficient housing approvals. It also means faster progress on renewable energy infrastructure and on the critical minerals projects that are vital for Australia's future. Labor is committed to establishing a strong and independent National Environmental Protection Agency. The agency will ensure that rules are followed without any political pressure and that the same standards apply across the country. The National Environmental Protection Agency will, as it's been described, be a tough cop on the beat. The National Environmental Protection Agency will be empowered to audit the assessment and approval processes of the states, keep track of environmental impacts and share that information openly. Companies that keep breaking environmental rules will receive tougher penalties. This may include taking the profits of a company that has been found to be breaching the rules. The bill will implement new environment protection orders to ensure urgent, risky and damaging situations can be managed quickly, and there will be enhanced audit powers to improve monitoring and compliance. Another key element of the reforms is the introduction of a new ministerial authority to establish national environment standards. These standards will define the parameters for decision-making across the act, ensuring that outcomes for the environment are improved. They will provide clarity, giving business predictability and lifting the quality and consistency of regulatory decisions. They will drive economic investment. They will drive job creation at the same time as protecting the environment. Labor is prioritising the development of these standards, working on draft versions for matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets and further drafts concerning First Nations engagement and environmental data. Once the legislation is in place, consultation on all standards will continue. Professor Samuel emphasised that reform must go beyond protection; it must also drive restoration of habitats. That's why the new laws will legally require projects to avoid, minimise and repair environmental damage wherever it's feasible. Where significant residual impacts remain, they must be fully offset, delivering a net gain for the environment. This is a crucial step beyond the current no-net-loss approach. This approach places the environment front and centre and enables a more strategic large-scale investment in biodiversity and ecosystem repair. The reforms will also define, in law, what constitutes an unacceptable impact on the environment. Currently, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act includes a 'clearly unacceptable' category but does not provides a definition. The new criteria will provide upfront clarity on what cannot be approved, making it clear from the start whether a project is viable and enabling faster, more transparent decisions. The legislation will also empower the minister to issue protection statements, guiding decision-makers on how to safeguard threatened species and ecological communities, including where unacceptable impacts or critical habitats are identified. The current assessment and approval process leads to lengthy delays, with companies having to deal with duplicated processes across federal, state and territory jurisdictions. The act will remove three of the six existing assessment pathways and introduce a new and efficient streamlined assessment pathway for project assessments and approvals. This will reduce both duplication of processes and time, cutting the process from the current 70-day statutory period to 50 days or less. There are also provisions for bilateral agreements with states and territories to apply Commonwealth assessment standards to projects, ensuring consistency and efficiency. This accreditation will be audited every five years to ensure that the new national environmental standards are being met. The measures in this bill follow a proud Labor history of environmental protection. Labor governments created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Labor governments saved the Franklin River from being dammed, and Labor governments protected the Daintree and Kakadu. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government protected over 95 million hectares of land and sea. Fifty-two per cent of our oceans are now protected, and Labor tripled the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park. This was the biggest act of environmental conservation anywhere in the world in 2023 and was backed up by $1.2 billion of investment to save the Great Barrier Reef. This government has also forced big polluters to cut their emissions. As part of our commitment to achieve net zero by 2050, as part of this journey, we have committed to 62 per cent to 70 per cent emissions by 2035. We have approved 111 renewable energy projects. That's enough to power 13 million homes. Renewable energy generation in Australia is at its highest level ever, up in volume by around 30 per cent since Labor came to government. At the end of 2024, 46 per cent of the national energy market was provided by renewables, and we are working towards 82 per cent renewables by 2030. This forward-thinking bill includes regional planning to streamline development in areas where it will have less impact on the environment and to protect critical habitats of vulnerable species. The current legislation focuses on a project-by-project assessment basis, whereas regional planning will enable a thorough view of the environmental impacts on a regional basis, protecting areas of high conservation priority. The Minister for the Environment and Water has consulted widely on the bill, holding over 100 meetings, roundtables and forums, and the result is a comprehensive, meaningful, sensible and balanced environmental law reform. I urge the opposition, the Greens political party and the crossbench to support what may be our only chance in a generation to enact the protections our environment needs, because, contrary to what people say, you don't have to choose between protecting the environment and boosting jobs. You don't have to choose between protecting the environment and investing in housing. You don't have to choose between protecting the environment and the economy. And that's what this bill does. This, right here, is a moment. It's an important moment because it's the moment that we get to change history when it comes to environmental policy. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past, this is the moment to get things done. This is the moment to put the reform into place. This is the moment to pass these laws. 20:28 Ms BOELE 26417 Bradfield At the end of the last century, 1999 to be exact, the nation was experiencing the long-term millennium drought, or the 'Big Dry', which was starting to worsen. That was the same year that Prime Minister Howard and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, introduced the coalition's signature climate change policy, the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. It was also that year, in March, that Cyclone Vance, one of the most powerful cyclones to hit the mainland of Australia, crossed the coast, causing significant damage in WA. For me, I started work at the Australian Conservation Foundation as their very first climate change campaigner, and I found myself thrown into the deep end of negotiations around laws to reform water rights in the Murray-Darling Basin and environmental reforms that we now know today as the EPBC Act—all 19 syllables of it. Twenty-five years young, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—when originally birthed—was intended to provide a national framework for protecting the environment and conserving biodiversity, especially matters of national environmental significance, like our reefs, our precious forests and our Ramsar wetlands. It aimed to clarify the roles of the federal government and improve cooperation between states and territories. How effective have these laws been in protecting the places that we love? Let's go to my happy place, science, and then straight to a less happy place, the facts. Australia's biodiversity has declined significantly over the last 25 years between 2000, when the EPBC Act was enacted, and today. Threatened species' populations have dropped, on average, by two to three per cent per annum. Key threats include habitat loss, invasive species and climate change. While some conservation efforts have shown success in slowing decline, these have been insufficient to reverse the overall downward trend. Overall, threatened species' populations have declined—birds by 61 per cent on average, with terrestrial birds seeing the steepest drop at 62 per cent; amphibians have seen a 97 per cent decline in relative abundance; and plants have seen a 68 per cent decline in relative abundance. The number of species listed as threatened has increased significantly, with 130 species added in 2023 alone, bringing the total to 2,098; 741 species have been added to the threatened list since 2000. That's a 53 per cent increase. In my beautiful electorate of Bradfield, threatened species have almost doubled, from 40 to 79 in the short period between my two runs for public office in 2022 and 2025. What have been the main drivers? It's habitat loss, it's invasive species, and it's climate change. Let me go to the first of these: habitat loss. In the 25 years since 2000, Australia has lost 9.22 million hectares of tree cover, about 22 per cent. While not all of that is old-growth forest, roughly 37 per cent of the loss is considered permanent deforestation resulting from land use changes, like agriculture and infrastructure. The remainder is from other disturbances, like logging and wildfires, that may not be permanent but degrade forests. One would think that any amendments to the laws here in 2025 would most certainly seek to address this calamity, like, for example, removing the exemption for large-scale logging in New South Wales, which is still possible under regional forestry agreements. Now I go to the second main driver of species loss: climate change. Let me stress, climate change—or, more precisely, the inadequate management of rising average global temperatures and the impacts that this brings to habitats and species survival—has been one of the main drivers of Australia's threatened species list blowing out. The average global temperature between 2000 and 2025 has shown a significant upward trend, with the 20-year period of 2001 to 2020 warming by approximately one degree Celsius, relative to 1850 to 1990 averages. The last decade, 2014 to 2023, is the warmest on record, at about 1.2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Recent data indicates that the most recent 12-month period, July 2024 to June 2025, was 1.55 degrees Celsius warmer than 1850 to 1900 averages. We are breaking records here, and not in good ways. It's almost as if our environment, the places we love, have gotten worse since we introduced the laws enacted to protect them. It's little wonder that there are so many people interested in the success of these laws, including, I bet, future generations and the natural world on which we all depend. As it was drafted, passed and gazetted, the EPBC Act 1999 gave the minister for the environment the powers to intervene in decisions of national significance for our environment. Yet this happened only once over that entire period. All the while, literally hundreds of new coal, gas and fracking projects were approved, causing—rather than ceasing—habitat degradation and destruction and climate change impacts. The government is at pains to tell us that this reform is once in a generation, and that means we truly need to get our skates on. It's very difficult for me not to be drawn into a joke about the Macquarie skate right here, but I shall not, because it's a bit too serious to joke about. We've already heard that the law is not working for nature. It's not working for renewable energy, for housing or for anyone. But I can tell you who it is most likely working for. That's the fossil fuel industry—literally hundreds of new approvals over those 25 years. I am, by nature, a very positive individual. The glass, for me, is usually half full, so let me turn to the elements of the government's amendments that deserve a gold star. These include a shift in focus from a law based around process to one that makes outcomes clearer. That's why the codification of national environmental standards in these laws is so useful. All stakeholders will know and understand what good and bad look like. This also gives the consent authorities, be they future state and territory governments, the National EPA or the minister, a consistent yardstick against which to measure the merits or the shortcomings of a given project. The second is stronger penalties for proponents who intentionally and persistently damage areas of high biodiversity and conservation value. The truth is that we can't put a value on platypus or Baudin's black cockatoo habitat, but we can use pricing signals to deter harmful behaviour. Stronger penalties will go some way to helping with that. But we are going to need a well-capacitated, independent regulator to prosecute. That's where the third gold, or rather silver, star comes in, with the establishment of the National EPA. In principle, this is a laudable amendment. We need to depoliticise decisions that have been made in the last 25 years under this law. The minister, in a political position which is more easily influenced by special interests, needs to be removed from as many of these decisions as possible. A competent, tightly codified and well-resourced, independent national EPA is most likely to be able to deliver for nature and industry. You may have noticed that there was a silver star there, and perhaps I've been a little too generous, because this takes me to the frowny-face stamp, which is around the wide discretion provided for the minister to make decisions not in favour of nature but possibly against it. I'm referring to the national interest exemption, where the minister may consider Australia's national interest, be it defence, security or emergency needs, when ignoring the protections of nature. So far, the proposed law fails to define what projects could qualify for this exemption to protect the places we love. The acting CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation said that he was deeply concerned with the proposed exemptions, arguing its application was wide open to interpretation and could easily be misused. He said: Too often the national interest is falsely conflated with the coal and gas industry and their commercial interests. And, if it's not the intention of this government's environment minister to misuse it, what about that of a future government's environment minister? To be clear, we've had laws that, for 25 years, have given the minister the power already to intervene to protect nature. This has only been flexed once, to my knowledge, and that was arguably more about politics than it was about nature. So, if the government is seeking to broaden the discretion provided to the minister to weigh in on decisions, then hold tight for even more decisions that favour industry over nature. As I've said before, if these laws don't protect nature, then which laws will? The way these amendments are drafted, there remain major loopholes, and restrictions on approving unacceptable impacts via ministerial discretion is just one of them. What about the specifics? The proposed new laws do nothing to end land clearing or old-growth logging. The RFA and continuous-use exemptions and the failure to address large-scale deforestation remain, and this is despite knowing that habitat loss is one of the three main reasons for species extinction. Despite the government's rhetoric on understanding the science of nature, there is very little regard, if any, for climate in these nature laws. There's no requirement that major polluting projects be assessed for their climate impacts, contrary to international law and the recent ICJ opinion. Nor is there a requirement for natural systems or ecosystem services to be assessed for their contribution to helping address climate impacts, be that in mitigation, adaptation or recovery. This is despite climate also being one of the top three reasons that Australia—and, in fact, the globe—has a species extinction crisis. The government is quick to criticise the coalition for not understanding the severities of the climate crisis, but the lack of climate consideration in these proposed nature laws makes me want them to take a look in the mirror. How is it possible that in 2025 strong nature laws are drafted without any consideration for the human induced climate crisis in which we and future generations must live? Finally—because I'm running out of time, not because I'm running out of amendments to critique—I want to talk about the process of drafting and creating the national environmental standards. We won't see them before the bill is passed, and the Samuel review into the EPBC Act could not have been clearer that the NES is the fulcrum, the foundation, of reform. To quote the minister, this is a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity' to do what we can for nature. When we do, we help not just other species and future generations; we help ourselves here in this lifetime. I support the intention of strengthening our nature laws. The government has made a good start, but, given the size of the crisis at hand and the responsibilities given to me by the people of Bradfield, I won't be supporting the amendments to our nature laws as proposed. My hope is that when these laws go to the Senate, our house of review, they will return here to this chamber with some additional safeguards attached, particularly for forestry protection, ministerial discretion and climate. When I see movement on these issues, I look forward to supporting the bills as amended, because our communities, our nation and our planet are depending on it. 20:40 Ms COFFEY 312323 Griffith Every generation gets only a few chances to do something significant that truly lasts. For ours, this is one of them—to renew the laws that protect the only home we have. These reforms are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect and restore our natural world and to pass on an Australia that is cleaner, greener and fairer than the one we inherited. In Griffith, we don't have to look far to see what's at stake. From the mangrove edges of Norman Creek to the summit views at Whites Hill Reserve, our community is stitched together by green corridors that give life and character to our suburbs. At dawn, rowers cut through the Brisbane River as mist hangs over the water. By dusk, lorikeets return to the canopies in our many bush corridors. These rhythms are part of who we are. Every weekend, I meet locals who tell me how much they treasure these places—people who walk our bush trails in the Seven Hills Bushland Reserve, kayak the reaches of the Brisbane River or volunteer with our many local conservation groups. Their work is quiet, local and deeply powerful. They plant, they restore, and they remind us that protecting the environment starts right here in our own backyards. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 honours their work and gives Australia a framework that finally matches their local efforts. The current EPBC laws date back to the Howard era in 1999, more than a quarter of a century ago. We all know these laws are simply not fit for purpose. They're outdated and broken. Across Australia, too many species are in decline, too many habitats are shrinking, and too many communities are weighed down by processes that are slow and inconsistent and lack the transparency that our communities rightly demand. Independent experts have urged us to act. In 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel's review told us the truth. The system is failing the environment and the people who depend on it. He has been plain about the urgency, saying this has been urgent for decades. From an economic perspective, as Dr Ken Henry warned at the National Press Club in July, policy paralysis must be unacceptable. These reforms answer that call. They bring our environmental laws into the 21st century, making them balanced, robust and forward-looking laws that protect what's precious while giving our communities and industry the clarity and rulebooks to support our local and national needs. As you can see, there is a lot in these bills, all necessary to deliver a comprehensive overhaul of our existing regulatory landscape. The first is setting clear national rules. We will put in place national environmental standards—simple, enforceable rules so decisions are consistent across the country and everyone knows the bar they have to meet. The second is creating a strong, independent umpire, a national environmental protection agency, who will do the day-to-day regulating, assessing, licensing and enforcing, with the powers to make the rules stick. The third is ending the profit-from-pollution model. Penalties go up, and ill-gotten gains can be stripped so doing the wrong thing never pays. The fourth is making restoration real. If a project causes harm to nature, it must deliver a genuine net gain, leaving the environment better than before, not just promising to offset the damage on paper. The fifth is drawing hard lines. Some impacts are simply unacceptable. This bill makes those red lines clear so irreplaceable places and species are not put at risk. The sixth is speeding up good projects, not bad ones. If you bring strong information and meet the standards, your assessment pathway is streamlined—faster, clearer and less duplication. The last is shining a brighter light. Better data, open reporting and transparent decisions mean communities can see what's proposed, what's approved and why and hold us all to account. Put together, this is a fair system that rewards those who do the right thing, stops the shortcuts and rebuilds public trust while protecting the places we love. Protection also means looking after the living neighbours we share our suburbs with. Our koalas still move along the green corridors of Norman Creek and Bulimba Creek, across Whites Hill Reserve and through the remnant bushland that stitches Camp Hill, Coorparoo and Holland Park together. In summer, flying foxes crisscross the night sky, powerful owls haunt tall eucalypts and water dragons sunbathe behind local sporting ovals. Along the riverbank, mangroves filter and protect, quietly doing the heavy lifting that keeps our city livable. In the melaleuca wetlands in Cannon Hill, the paperbarks offer shade and birdsong reminds us to take a moment to slow down. But these places are more than scenery; they are working habitat corridors. When we strengthen them, koalas have safer passages to feed and breed, urban heat is lowered by canopy and stormwater has somewhere to slow and settle. When we lose them, we don't just lose species; we lose the resilience, amenity and natural character that makes Griffith feel like home. Yes, some of the most distinctive locals are the bush stone-curlews, the long-legged night watchers whose calls have startled more than a few new residents of Coorparoo and Camp Hill. It's a majestic bird that was undeniably robbed of the honour of being the Australian bird of the year; 2026 will be the curlew's year. Australian bird of the year or not, our job is to make sure the curlew still has safe places to nest and raise its young, just as these reforms strengthen protections for koala feed trees, creek-line vegetation and the mangroves that shelter juvenile fish. That is at the heart of this reform—practical steps that protect and restore the flora and fauna that define our ecosystems. Clear national standards, genuine restoration requirements and a strong independent regulator mean local bush care is backed by national law. Approvals will respect science and community, and the net-gain approach will leave nature better than we found it. If we do this well, the next generation will inherit healthier creeks, thicker canopy and continued birdsong at dusk, living proof that our nature is not just surviving but thriving. Conservation decisions outlive us. The Franklin, the Daintree and Kakadu endure because previous generations acted with courage. Koongarra, Ningaloo, the Murray-Darling and our oceans stand protected because leaders chose to protect what we love. I'm proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party, the party that has delivered every single major environmental reform in our nation's history. When Australians think of the moments we chose protection over short-term convenience, they remember Labor governments taking responsibility and acting with courage. In the seventies, it was under Gough Whitlam that we established the first federal department of the environment, blocked drilling plans in the Great Barrier Reef, ratified the World Heritage Convention, and passed the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. In the eighties, it was under Bob Hawke that we used World Heritage powers to protect wild rivers, returned Uluru to traditional owners, launched Landcare, led the international push to ban mining in Antarctica and adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets. In the nineties, it was under Paul Keating that we protected K'gari from logging and mining and introduced the Endangered Species Protection Act and the Indigenous protected areas process. In the 2000s, it was under Kevin Rudd that we ratified the Kyoto Protocol within days of taking office, launched Caring for our Country, a major landscape-scale biodiversity investment, and provided long-term funding to the Working on Country Indigenous rangers program. In the 2010s, it was under a Gillard government that we established the Climate Change Authority for independent advice, forged the Tasmanian forestry agreement to protect high-value native forests and expanded the Commonwealth marine parks to 3.1 million square kilometres, making it the largest network in the world. And now, under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, we have signed the Leaders Pledge for Nature, adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and moved on the Nature Repair Act to create a framework for private biodiversity investment. We've protected an extra 95 million hectares of Australian oceans and land, extending marine parks around Macquarie Island and Heard Island and McDonald Islands. We've established Environment Information Australia to give the public and businesses easier access to the latest environmental data. We've doubled funding to better look after our national parks, including Kakadu, doubled the Indigenous Rangers Program, invested over $600 million to protect threatened flora and fauna and tackle feral animals and weeds, and invested $200 million to clean up our rivers. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it demonstrates our courage to rise to the challenge and do the work to put in place effective laws that protect our natural environment. While those opposite are tearing themselves apart and wanting to take Australia backwards, this bill continues this proud Labor story—looking forward, not backward. These reforms are the product of years of listening. I want to acknowledge the scientists, conservationists, renewable energy advocates, farmers, planners, local councils and industry groups who have shared their expertise and passion. I want to thank the Labor Environment Action Network, LEAN, whose persistence and vision have helped keep environmental reform on the national agenda. I've been a proud member of LEAN for many years, part of a grassroots movement of Labor members and supporters working to ensure the environment remains at the centre of our politics. As an ALP national conference delegate, last year I supported a motion from LEAN about the proposed development at Moreton Bay's Toondah Harbour. The development would have had an absolutely unacceptable impact on the Ramsar-listed wetland and on threatened species, such as the critically endangered eastern curlew. With my support, this motion was passed at National Conference in August 2024. Shortly following this, Minister Tanya Plibersek proposed rejecting the development due to its unacceptable environmental impact, and the proposal was soon withdrawn. It meant a lot to me when I was identified as a LEAN climate and environment champion nationally, and, now, as a member of this place, I am proud to continue this agenda. Since coming into office I have met with climate action and environment groups, in my electorate of Griffith and nationally, to listen to their concerns and to share important messages from the government. In these first few months, I have met with more than 20 groups and local constituents to discuss climate change and the environment, and I want to acknowledge their advocacy. The groups have included the Griffith Australian Conservation Foundation and Wilderness Society groups, and their federal counterparts; the Australian Youth Climate Coalition; Parents for Climate; WWF Australia and many more. We have also hosted a roundtable with local environmental and climate change groups, with the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Josh Wilson, and doorknocked local residents in my community alongside the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Murray Watt. Environmental reform sits at the centre of nearly every challenge our nation faces. Whether it's building homes or transport, securing clean and reliable energy, supporting farmers and fishers, protecting water systems and preparing for a changing climate, all of it depends on the health of our environment and the rules that approvals are pinned to. These reforms give clarity to those who build, who invest, who grow and who care for the land. They ensure progress does not come at the expense of nature but in partnership with it. This is not about saying no to development; it's about saying yes to doing it better. When we get that balance right, we build not just environmental protection; we build national resilience, confidence and pride. I want to acknowledge Professor Samuel for his excellent work in delivering recommendations that were supported by environment, First Nations and industry stakeholders alike. This is our moment to show courage and leadership together. Australians want us to act. The scientists and ecologists, planners, catchment managers and community volunteers and Professor Graeme Samuel have told us clearly what is needed. He has urged cooperation across politics and reminded us: 'don't let perfect be the enemy of good'. He has said: What we are talking about here is the future of nature for our children, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He has also been clear that this package reflects the totality of his review's recommendations. There is no variation, in any significant or, indeed, any small way, from the recommendations of the review. As Dr Ken Henry concluded in his National Press Club address, 'We have had all the reviews we need.' As he said: 'It is now up to parliament. Let's just get it done.' So to every member of this parliament—government, opposition and crossbench: let's meet this moment. Let us work across differences and pass the reforms our experts have asked for and our communities deserve. Many commentators and politicians want to frame this legislation as a tug of war between the environment and the economy; they assert a false choice that you can have one but not the other. This is plain wrong. You don't have to choose between the environment and jobs and business. You can protect and improve our environment while removing duplication and speeding up decisions. That was at the heart of Professor Samuel's report. In the same way that we moved beyond the notion that you could act on climate change or have jobs, we must move beyond this false choice when it comes to nature. When we think of Australia's great environmental victories—the Franklin, the Daintree and Kakadu—they were never easy, but they still endure. And, in this moment, our communities and experts are asking us to choose progress over protest and outcomes over outrage—to work side by side, to deliver for the environment, to support business to deliver the homes and clean energy that we need, and to hand on a healthier environment to the next generation. Let us not miss this chance. The House transcript was published up t o 20:55 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 12:38, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.

Tuesday, 4 November 2025

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 12:38, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.

 

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 86 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Milsons Point Post Office, Domestic and Family Violence 86 12:38 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to share some very welcome news and a big win for our community. After strong local advocacy, I'm delighted that the Milsons Point post office will remain open. This outcome is a testament to the power of community action. When people come together, speak up and persist they can make a real difference. Earlier this year, members of the Milson Precinct reached out to my office, deeply concerned about the unexpected and sudden announcement of the proposed closure of the local post office. Along with communities from Kirribilli, Milsons Point, Lavender Bay and residents of Greenway, James Milson Village and the Port Jackson Tower housing complexes, they coordinated an advocacy campaign to save this important community asset and access to vital services. On behalf of the community, I wrote to and met with Australia Post to understand the issue and to ensure that these vulnerable residents were not left without access to vital services. In fact, it was the detail in this procedure that was important. Upon becoming aware of the change of the rental conditions of the premises in which the Milsons Point post office was located, which is held by New South Wales Transport, I followed up in writing with the government and the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Transport in New South Wales, John Graham, and requested that they reconsider the tender process to allow Australia Post to remain at the Milsons Point location. As I said, I briefed the Prime Minister—who I would say is Kirribilli's most well-known resident—and the government about the circumstances of the proposed closure. In that respect, I'd like to thank the Prime Minister and the government for their engagement and support with both the Minister for Transport, John Graham, and the CEO of Australia Post, Paul Graham, for hearing our community's concerns and for engaging and ultimately resolving this issue. My team attended the large community forum held at the local church to discuss the issue at the outset. There were some 400-plus attendees, highlighting how important this issue was for the community. We then attended a further local precinct meeting to hear from the community and followed up with Australia Post to ensure that the community were able to be heard. All the while, my constituent liaison officer in my office, Nilmini Panditharatne, to whom I have to give a special shout-out and say thank you, kept in constant contact, ensuring that we continued to advocate for the post office to remain open. It truly is a community win and a testament to the coordinated, respectful, determined effort of all involved. Another issue I want to raise is the domestic and family violence roundtable that I hosted recently. Earlier this month, I held this roundtable with many of our leading organisations and not-for-profits in Warringah. We heard from those on the front line in our communities, such as Northern Beaches Women's Shelter, Mary's House Services, Women & Children First, Women's Resilience Centre, Dalwood Splistead Service, LocalKind Northern Beaches, St Vincent de Paul and Lighthouse for the Community. These providers play an immense role, providing shelters, crisis accommodation and also practical support such as funding for car registrations, laptops, food banks and clothing and connecting affected families with legal and immigration services. We heard from those working in the mental health space, such as Mentoring Men and Lifeline Northern Beaches. These organisations help to shift attitudes, rebuild confidence and address the trauma before it becomes another statistic. Importantly, we heard from the local primary health network, who work with preventive and crisis centres to make sure that women and children escaping domestic and family violence get the mental health and wellbeing support they require. We also heard from local residents and advocates, both men and women, who shared their ideas and lived experience. The roundtable highlighted what we already knew: our crisis centres are in crisis and our mental and primary health services are under incredible strain. Northern Beaches Women's Shelter accepted 12 women per day in 2020. The demand is now up to 70 per day. Last year they were able to house 273 women and children, but had to turn away some 584 women. These are the women who are attending the service, but we know that there are so many more who don't even report or come to services, and they don't receive support for fear of retribution. These services are relied upon by the community. As pointed out by the Women's Resilience Centre, many women can feel uncomfortable going to police. We know 78 per cent of women never report violence to the police, and too often funding is tied to reporting. There is a question around the way funding is allocated in New South Wales for the Staying Home Leaving Violence program, because it is often tied to whether or not reports have been made. With increased demand, grant funding is simply not sufficient. This is an issue where it's not just a question of: more money has been spent by the government, so why is the problem not getting better? The problem is that we're still underfunding this sector. There were five key outcomes of this roundtable. First, crisis centres are overwhelmingly providing funding assistance for women who are escaping domestic and family violence but who may be tied to their partner, meaning that they're unable to access JobSeeker and family benefit payments. This is a question when they are here on partner visas and, as a result, the non-profit organisations are having to meet the support for these women, whereas we should normally be able to get them into our systems. I've raised with the minister's office that, in circumstances of domestic and family violence that involve partner visas, we need to be able to move these women onto visas that would enable them to access support so that our not-for-profit organisations are not carrying the financial burden. I look forward to trying to find a solution to this problem. Second, greater support for children who are escaping violence is needed. Crisis centres need the right scaffolding to support children. Their needs are different to those of their parents. This includes appropriate housing and other practical support—clothes, books and school supplies. We know, for example, the 10 sessions of GP mental health are proven to be insufficient to effectively respond to the situation, in particular for children impacted by the situation. Third, at the heart of the crisis is housing. Greater funding is needed for crisis housing and looking at different opportunities to redevelop existing infrastructure, such as aged-care facilities. There is a lack of real data on DV numbers and available housing. New South Wales, I was shocked to find out, has no centralised domestic violence housing vacancy managing system. It is up to each individual organisation to find out whether there is housing and source it. This is a simple fix: having a database to ensure that happens. It creates extra administration burden on crisis centres that are already understaffed and struggling. They have to spend time calling around, connecting with other centres for availability for women who need shelter. Surely we can have a centralised domestic violence housing vacancy management system. Better discretion for organisations to distribute funding as they see fit was also called for, especially with accommodation to meet high rental costs in Sydney. Currently, the way funding is allocated to these organisations has so much regulation and so many rules around it. They can't apply it in a discretionary way to short-term accommodation to make up for shortfalls in crisis accommodation being available. That was an overwhelming call as well. The fourth point was the implementation of specialist domestic and family violence courts that have expertise in dealing with victims of domestic family violence. We have specialist courts for other areas. Why do we not have a specialised court for domestic and family violence? Having come as a barrister from the family law sector, there is no doubt that domestic and family violence is prevalent across many areas. We should have a specialised stream in our courts to deal with this issue so that we have specialist decision-makers with the proper training and understanding. The fifth area, most importantly, is, obviously, that prevention needs to be addressed if we are going to have any hope of achieving the goal of eliminating domestic and family violence and at least reducing it substantially. We need the urgent implementation of the rapid review recommendation, especially around delay or reduction of alcohol delivery times that were increased during COVID. That's already been implemented by the ACT. We need to ban gambling advertising. The link between gambling and alcohol and increased domestic violence numbers is really clear. I urge the government to implement recommendations of the Murphy review and to start acting on these known social harms. We need men to be part of the conversation, especially those who are calling for change. An organisation that I've met with, Mentoring Men, are desperate for funding. They can't get any funding. And yet, this is an organisation that has grown out of mental health support but is now playing a role in domestic violence. They can have the peer-to-peer, man-to-man conversations to start calling out this scourge. There's so much more to be done. Hunter Electorate: Wine Industry 87 12:48 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise today to talk about something very close to the heart of the Hunter: wine. But it's not just any wine; it's the best wine in the world. Yes, I know every region in Australia will try stake their claim, but let's be honest, the Hunter Valley has got them all covered. The Hunter is more than just a wine region. It's a community, it is jobs, it is culture, it is history, and it is also our future. Of course, it's semillon, shiraz and chardonnay—wines that are world famous and wines that locals here have been enjoying and perfecting for generations. We've been doing this longer than anyone else in Australia. The Hunter Valley is the birthplace of Australian wine, and I will argue anywhere, any time that it remains the benchmark. That pride was on full display at the 2025 PKF Hunter Valley Wine Show awards—the 53rd edition of this event that has become one of the most respected wine shows in the country. It was judged earlier this year at the Lone Pine Barracks in Singleton, right in the heart of my electorate. It was wrapped up with the trophy winners' luncheon at Cypress Lakes in Pokolbin with none other than my good friend Johanna Griggs AM as the MC. If you want a sign of how seriously we take wine in the Hunter, then look no further than this: nearly 4,000 bottles were assessed by the judging panel. That's right—4,000 bottles of Hunter Valley wine all lined up and put to the test. We had 68 exhibitors, 679 entries and, in the end, 80 gold medals were awarded. That is the depth and strength of the Hunter Valley Wine Show. This year was also the first with Toni Paterson MW as chair of judges. Tony summed it up beautifully when she said, 'The wines of the Hunter show integrity, personality, harmony and length. Those are the hallmarks of good wine and those are the hallmarks of the Hunter Valley.' She said there was beauty in the wine everywhere she looked and she was spot on. We were also joined by a international judge Dr Edward Ragg MW, who came all the way from Beijing. He has judged at the Decanter World Wine Awards, written extensively about wine and taught some of the best. Even he walked away impressed, saying the Hunter Valley produces a unique style, particularly with Shiraz, that excites him. If somebody who has tasted wines from every corner of the world tells you the Hunter wine is special then you better believe it. Let me tell you about the winners because this is where the Hunter pride really kicks in. The Petrie-Drinan Trophy for the best white wine went to Tinklers Wines for their 2017 reserve semillon. That same wine also won best semillon of the show and best table wine for a small producer. If you want a great definition of a Hunter Valley semillon, it is right there—crisp, bright and capable of ageing with more grace than about any white wine in the world. The Doug Seabrook Memorial Trophy for best red wine of the show went to Sweetwater Estate Wine for their 2023 shiraz. They also picked up trophies for best single vineyard red and best shiraz. Again, it is what the Hunter does best—medium body shiraz with spice and pepper that makes it stand out from the heavyweights elsewhere. We also saw incredible results also from Silkman Wines. Liz Silkman, the so-called queen, proved her title once again, picking up the George Windham Memorial Trophy, the Murray Tyrrell Trophy and the Henry John Lindemann Memorial trophy for her 2023 and 2024 chardonnays. Tyrells, one of the great Hunter families, picked up the trophy for best museum white with their 2006 vat 1 semillon. That is nearly 20 years old and is still showing the life and vibrancy that makes Hunter semillon so famous around the world. If that was not enough, Audrey Wilkinson took out the Wines of Provenance trophy with their Ridge Semillon from 2006, 2014 and 2017. That proves the point I'm making: Hunter wine is not just good when it is young; it ages with grace, develops character and shows the world what we have known for years—that is, the Hunter makes wines with real longevity. Across the board we saw success for so many local wineries, from Brokenwood with their 2025 Oakey Creek Vineyard Shiraz, to Thomas Wines with their Sweetwater Ridge and Kiss Shiraz, to Colvin Wines, De Iuliis Wines, John Wallace Wines, Pepper Tree Wines, First Creek Wines, Mercer Wines, Glandore Wines and Gunpowder Wines—the list goes on. Every single one of them proves that the Hunter is not just about one or two famous labels; it is about the whole of community, whole of winemakers—big and small—innovating and pushing the boundaries while also respecting tradition. I have to give a special mention to the scholarships awarded along the way for these trophies: the Tyrell Family Advanced Viticulture Scholarship, the Brokenwood Advanced Wine Technology Scholarship, and the Alastair Sutherland scholarship as well. These are about investing in the next generation, making sure that our young viticulturists and winemakers have the support, training and opportunities to keep the Hunter at the very top for decades to come. Let me say this as plainly as I can: the Hunter Valley is not just Australia's best wine region; it is the world's best wine region. I can already hear the interjections from members representing the Barossa, Margaret River, McLaren Vale and elsewhere. They will all tell me their shiraz is bolder, their cab sav is bigger and their pinot noir is fancier. Good luck to them, but, when the dust settles, the Hunter still stands alone. We do semillon like nobody else in the world. The French might try and the South Africans might try, but, when people talk about the benchmark for semillon, they talk about the Hunter. Our shiraz has character, finesse and personality that sets it apart from all of those bigger ones that some people may talk about. It is elegant, it is age-worthy and it speaks of the land it comes from. Our chardonnay is among the best in the country and we are not afraid to try new things: from vermentino to fiano, to sparkling styles that show off the versatility of our region. And beyond the wine itself, let's talk about what this means for our community. The Hunter wine industry is jobs for locals; it is tourism that brings people in from Sydney, interstate and all around the world; it is festivals and events that fill our restaurants, hotels and towns; it is families who have been working the same vineyard for generations and new migrants coming and making their mark; it is pride in who we are and what we do. The Hunter Valley wine industry contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to the national economy every year, but, more importantly, it gives Hunter its identity. When people hear 'Hunter Valley', do you know what they think of? Wine—the best wine in the world. When they taste Hunter wine, they remember it. Now, I'm a big bloke and I've been known to enjoy a glass or two, and I will tell you this: I will put a Hunter Valley semillon or a Hunter Valley shiraz on the table against any wine from around the world. French, Italian, Californian: you name it. Nine times out of 10, the Hunter will win. That is why shows like the PKF Hunter Valley Wine Show matter. It's not just about medals and trophies; it's about recognition. They're about reminding ourselves and the world that the Hunter continues to lead the way. I want to finish by thanking everyone involved in it this year's show: the judges; the exhibitors; the organisers; the winemakers themselves; and the viticulturists too—let's not forget them—because without the viticulturists the winemakers can't do their job, so, thank you to the viticulturists as well; and, of course, the Army at Singleton for once again hosting the judging. The Hunter Valley should be very proud. We're not just making wine; we're making history. We are setting the standards and we are showing the world that the best wine does not come from Paris or Rome or Napa. They come from Pokolbin, from Broke and from Lovedale. They come from the Hunter. So, next time anyone asks me where the best wine in the world comes from, I will tell them straight—very straight. It comes from the Hunter, mate, and don't let anybody else tell you otherwise. To all the Hunter vineyards out there, and to all the wineries and cellar doors: keep up the great work. I know sometimes times are tough with what you're going through, and I thank every single one of you for what you do for our area, what you do for our industry and what you do to make Hunter the very best place it can be. Cheers, all. Banking and Financial Services 89 12:57 Ms PENFOLD 248895 Lyne I rise in solidarity with my electorate to speak out against the increasing push to move Australians towards a digital ID and a cashless society. As I've mentioned on a number of occasions in this chamber, the Lyne electorate is the oldest demographic in the country. Thus, the negative implications of the societal push to adopt these new systems is, understandably, greatly felt and greatly feared within Lyne. Cash has long been deemed king, but that status is quickly being usurped by card and digital payments driven by technological advancements, the COVID-19 pandemic and so-called convenience. The big banks, corporate Australia and government are among some of the greatest proponents of a cashless society and are rapidly driving the transition, but in doing so they are recklessly leaving behind a large portion of the population. Card and digital payments are not necessarily convenient nor accessible to an electorate with a high proportion of older Australians and a network and grid that is becoming increasingly unreliable. Power outages are a common occurrence in parts of the electorate. I know that Nabiac and Minimbah often experience blackouts when the winds pick up. In Harrington and other coastal towns whose populations double or triple during holiday seasons, it's often impossible for businesses to use their squares because the mobile bandwidth is stretched to capacity. When this occurs, all cashless options are rendered completely useless. In these instances, cash well and truly is king. Indeed, it is the only option to ensure business can continue to operate, and ensure consumers can still purchase food, fuel and medicine. And what about in emergency situations? Vast swathes of my electorate was submerged during the catastrophic flooding in May this year. Digital payments were simply not a possibility. Lou from my electorate notes: 'We've been subject to many natural disasters—flood, storms and drought—where it has been essential to purchase fuel to operate machinery, such as farm RVs and tractors. Cash always needs to be an acceptable form of payment.' Denis in my electorate stated, 'As a regional dweller, power failures are not uncommon during bushfires, and mobile towers are also subject to damage.' We saw that recently just near me at Wauchope. And what about our most vulnerable? Women escaping domestic violence often rely on cash to be able to make discrete purchases or payments without being monitored or tracked through bank transactions. For many women of domestic violence, cash means freedom. The government has recently closed submissions for its cash mandate draft regulations. The draft Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 would require large supermarket and fuel retailers to accept cash for in-person transactions under $500. While this may sound like a positive move to enshrine the continuation of cash, many constituents within my electorate are extremely concerned about this mandate, with all of its exceptions and limits—it is actually a trojan horse to herald in cash death—and understandably so. Under the regulations, the ACCC will be able to grant exemptions from complying with the new regulations in exceptional circumstances. I'm concerned that these exemptions could become the rule, especially in towns with no bank or affordable cash transportation services. Without banking access, supermarkets and petrol stations could be excused altogether because they themselves don't have access to cash or the ability to safely deposit takings. That is why this proposal is inadequate. Furthermore, as it currently stands, the proposal is far too narrow, applying to just supermarkets and fuel stations. In doing so, it leaves out medicine, housing, utility bills and a host of other essentials. If the Albanese government is serious about ensuring financial inclusion and ensuring society's most vulnerable do not get left behind, then I urge them to expand the mandate to guarantee that it applies to all retailers and outlets without exemption or exception. We must also ensure towns have the infrastructure that makes cash payments possible, and halt the disappearance of ATMs and the closing of bank branches. Otherwise businesses will easily be able to exempt themselves from this mandate. It is clear to me why the proposal is insufficient. The government has cherry picked one recommendation from the regional banking inquiry, while ignoring the rest. It is now over 430 days since the inquiry handed down its report, and 75 days since every member of the Nationals wrote to the Treasurer seeking a response to the inquiry. The government hasn't replied to either. I urge the government to consider the attempts by other countries to embrace a cash-free economy and the disastrous effects that has had. Sweden, for instance, has had to backtrack on its rush to cashlessness, which financially excluded the population's most vulnerable. It doesn't matter if the number of cash payments are falling; the point is that they have not stopped altogether. While there is ever a need for cash, the government must ensure that the need is protected and enshrined in its laws and not undermined by it. The same can be said of digital ID. If the constituents of Lyne are concerned about a cashless society, they are livid about digital ID. I understand the rationale behind the government digitisation scheme. It is often touted as providing easy, high confidence verification of identity to enable millions of offline transactions to move online, which will enable a string of enhanced services. But the reality is that national multi-use identity schemes have a poor track record in Australia—and for good reason. Successive governments have presided over a string of breaches and confidentiality failures that have shaken public confidence in digital initiatives. They have done nothing to build trust regarding rights protection and limit setting. There have been a number of emails to my office over the last fortnight from constituents outlining their concerns. Michelle's centre around the potential for security breaches, saying: The people of your electorate do not want this digital ID. The federal government have already had many breaches of security. The Australian government needs to take heed of what is happening overseas with this incredibly stupid idea of digital ID. This was from Mark: The federal government is rolling out digital ID on My Gov. They say it's not mandatory but I fear that it is a load of bulldust. I keep refusing to update my My Gov ID, but I fear it is only a matter of time that I won't be able to lodge my quarterly BAS statements without it; I am staying with my password login. If I have to change over I will just shut down my business and still refuse to change to the Digital ID. This was from Kieren: I am expressing my objection to any form of government digital ID and elimination of cash in Australia for any reason. This system would give the reigning government absolute power to manipulate and control every aspect of our lives … it is historically a very bad idea to allow the concentration of too much power to be in the hands of too few people—they will eventually use and abuse it, that is just human nature. An Australia card was proposed to the Australian public in the late eighties but faced strong opposition and was abandoned, we know a digital ID would be far worse. Cheryl said: I write to you as an Australian citizen, vested with constitutional rights and freedoms that no government or corporate body has the authority to diminish, restrict, or coerce. This correspondence serves as a formal notice of refusal and non-consent to the Digital ID scheme in all its current and proposed forms. The Digital ID scheme centralises power, strips Australians of privacy, and creates the foundation for unprecedented monitoring and control over ordinary life. Linking financial access, healthcare, education, employment, and civic participation to a centralised ID system paves the way for systemic abuse. Australians will not tolerate it. The people of Lyne have spoken. That's just a sample of the emails to my office. My old rule of thumb is that, for every single person who takes the time to write, there are another 100 out there who are thinking of doing it, thinking the same thing. The government would be wise to hasten slowly—very slowly—on this project. The government should not succumb to the profit focused goals and efficiency driven dividends of corporate Australia—just like Telstra is doing in Taree and the banks are doing across regional Australia—or the excitable IT technocrats thinking they are doing everyone a massive favour or officials in the bureaucracy who think they will meet or exceed some KPIs on technology adoption and implementation in the processes of government. In summary, my point is that, while technology will always be with us and we will have to adapt to using it ever more, we need to be very mindful of what is in the best interests of people from all walks of life and from all regions of Australia and not just impose a new confronting technology on them in the interests of someone else. Robertson Electorate: Woy Woy Road 91 13:07 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The Central Coast has over 2,000 kilometres of local roads managed by the Central Coast Council, a large network of infrastructure to maintain. The Central Coast Council has responsibility for managing and addressing safety matters affecting Woy Woy Road. Woy Woy Road is a busy commuter thoroughfare for residents travelling to and from the M1 from the peninsula or sounding suburbs. As the population has increased over the last decade, so too has the volume of traffic passing through Woy Woy Road, which has led to a number of crashes in recent years, some involving fatalities. There's been increasing feedback from the community about the design of the road and that this design leads to risky driver behaviour and, in turn, leads to more crashes. As the federal member for Robertson, which includes the area encompassing Woy Woy Road, I have received correspondence from the community inquiring about what action the federal government can take to help address the issues affecting Woy Woy Road. After some careful deliberation and following discussions with my state and local government counterparts, I have launched a petition to fix Woy Woy Road. The objective of this petition is to raise awareness for Woy Woy Road and what potential measures and, ultimately, funding can be implemented by all three levels of government. I aim to register as many signatures as possible on this petition so that I can demonstrate to all three levels of government and their departments the concern in my community about Woy Woy Road and the urgent action that is required. Since launching the petition in late September, my office and I have recorded over 500 signatures of people who want to see action taken to fix Woy Woy Road. I will continue to collect and I'll continue to record those signatures over the coming months. I invite residents living on the Central Coast to either visit my website to complete that petition online or to come into my office to complete the physical petition itself. I'd like to commend and recognise the bravery of Central Coast mother Tara Dibben, who tragically lost her son, Joshua Dibben, on Woy Woy Road in 2023. Joshua was travelling along Woy Woy Road on 26 October of that same year when his Toyota HiAce van collided with another vehicle. Emergency services rushed to the scene and worked to save Joshua's life. However, he could not be revived. Joshua is survived by his young wife, Brooke, and son, Jai. Joshua's mother, Tara, continues to advocate for safety improvements along Woy Woy Road and has been a pivotal voice in establishing this petition. Tara is supporting my campaign to fix Woy Woy Road and has said that she believes improvements to Woy Woy Road, like the construction of centre strip bollards, may have saved her son's life. Tara does not want another family on the Central Coast, or another family across this nation, for that matter, to go through the same devastating experience that she had to endure. Thank you, Tara, for all of your advocacy. Thank you for all of your support. Our community appreciates your tireless passion for positive change following this tragedy. The federal government facilitates several funding programs to support regions to undertake improvements and to maintain existing infrastructure. The Roads to Recovery Program is one such initiative is designed to support the construction and maintenance of the nation's local road infrastructure assets, which facilitate greater accessibility, improves safety, as well as economic and social outcomes for Australians. Funding under the RTR program is available to all local governments in Australia for projects delivered through councils. I have spoken to Central Coast Council about this program and I have encouraged them to apply for funding. Similarly, I have raised the issue of Woy Woy Road with the relevant federal minister and placed this matter on their radar for any upcoming support from the Australian government. I will continue to represent my community on this matter to all relevant ministers and their departments in the federal government. Another area of action that my community has requested to address safety along Woy Woy Road is to increase the number of police patrols taking place. Many residents have said that they often see reckless and dangerous driving along Woy Woy Road daily. If there were more highway patrol police or mobile speed cameras on this road, many community members believe that these measures would be a strong deterrent. I welcome the support of our state member for Gosford, Liesl Tesch MP, who has written to the New South Wales minister for regional roads and transport and requested that Transport for New South Wales investigate the implementation of a speed camera at known speeding locations on Woy Woy Road. Ms Tesch has also requested that Transport for New South Wales investigates whether average speed cameras could also play a role in reducing speeding on Woy Woy Road. I'm proud of the work that the Albanese Labor government has done since its election in 2022 and the investments it has made in local road infrastructure on the New South Wales Central Coast. The Avoca Drive upgrade through Kincumber is charging ahead with the recent announcement of the prioritised first stage. The Australian and New South Wales governments are investing over $130 million towards the upgrade of this road to improve traffic flow and deliver infrastructure for active and public transport access on Avoca Drive through to the township of Kincumber. The upgrade will also provide safe and efficient access for the local community to key destinations along the route, including to Kincumber Village Shopping Centre, several schools, and sporting facilities in the area. The concept design and environmental assessment for the priority first stage is expected to be displayed to the community soon for feedback. I encourage all who are interested in this development to review the concept design and provide feedback. In addition to our Avoca Drive upgrade through Kincumber, we have also committed funding for $15 million towards upgrades to several intersections in the Empire Bay and Bensville communities. The Empire Bay Drive Intersection Strategy planning project will deliver a strategy to upgrade intersections servicing Empire Bay and surrounding communities. This will include consideration of the intersection of Empire Bay Drive and Wards Hill Road. The Empire Bay Drive and Wards Hill Road intersection is used by thousands of motorists each day and is an important transport connection to Empire Bay Public School. It also provides access to the Bouddi National Park. These vital planning works will have a road safety focus and deliver a business case for future upgrades. I look forward to continuing to update the Central Coast community on the progress of this project as it reaches important milestones. Our record investment in infrastructure also includes $115 million for the upgrade of Terrigal Drive. Terrigal Drive through Terrigal and Erina is another notorious choke point for motorists in the region. The Australian government will provide funding to the New South Wales government to commence the necessary investigation and planning works for this much-needed project. This project will include the duplication of sections of the single-lane road and upgrades to intersections along the very busy road corridor. Lastly our government's $93 million Central Coast Roads Package has made a real difference to local road infrastructure. Several local roads in the region have received renewal works, including the Esplanade and Bourke Road in Ettalong Beach, Beach Street in Umina Beach and Debenham Road South in West Gosford, amongst others. Excitingly the much-anticipated upgrade to the intersection of Ocean Beach Road and Rawson Road in Woy Woy is taking shape, with progress moving closer to the construction phase. The intersection upgrade project is one of 29 projects to be delivered by council through the $93 million Central Coast Roads Package, which is 100 per cent funded by the Australian government. This project will deliver immediate improvements to traffic flow, reducing the vehicle queue lengths, and will make the existing road environment safer for all road users—including motorists, cyclists and pedestrians—with signalised crossings of each leg of the intersection. The Albanese Labor government will continue to invest in vital infrastructure projects across the Central Coast in this 48th parliamentary term. I want to again encourage my community right across the Central Coast to support my petition to fix Woy Woy Road. The more signatures that we can record on this petition, whether it be through my website or physically in my office, will send a strong signal to all levels of government—to local, to state and to federal—and underscore the urgency of this matter that we must make Woy Woy Road safer. Veterans 92 13:17 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman Australia's story has been written by the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who have worn our nation's uniform. They have served in war and peace, at home and abroad, carrying the weight of our flag and our values. Every one of them deserves to be remembered not only for the battles they fought but for the lives that they built after returning home. More than 103,000 Australians gave their lives in service and countless others came back bearing scars that never truly healed. Too often their memory fades over time. Across our cemeteries the resting places of too many veterans are unmarked and forgotten. Their stories and their service risks being lost to history. That is where the Australian Remembrance Army comes in, led by volunteers Katrina Trevethan, an expert genealogist, and Cate Walker, a graduate in cemetery practice. These amazing women give their time and energy to restore dignity to those who served. They identify unmarked graves, research their records and ensure that as many veterans as possible are properly recognised for their contribution to this country. In Cleveland Cemetery, within my electorate, their work has uncovered 19 previously unmarked graves of servicemen from the world wars. The discoveries bring the total number of known veterans buried there to 421. It is slow, careful work, but it matters deeply. It builds off the amazing work that they've undertaken at Lutwyche and Brisbane cemeteries, where they have located approximately 1,500 World War I veterans in unmarked graves. To proceed with marking a veteran's grave, permission must be sought from a confirmed descendant. To give you a sense of the scale of this effort, one veteran buried in the Cleveland Cemetery had no children. The researchers therefore had to trace the lines through 12 of their siblings until a great-great-grand-nephew and a great-great-great-grand-niece were both located living in Canada. It is painstaking work undertaken on a voluntary basis to ensure that these heroes are given the honour that they deserve. Through the research work of the Australian Remembrance Army, they've also uncovered many unmarked graves that should have been commemorated by Veterans' Affairs many years ago through longstanding commitments to provide headstones to any veterans who succumbed to the injuries that they sustained during their war service. It is a shame that it takes the efforts of volunteer researchers to point out to DVA where they have failed to achieve their mission over so many decades. Other groups across the country involved in this work include Forgotten Diggers Inc., the Longreach Archival and Historical Research Group, Friends of Toowong Cemetery, the Waroona Historical Society, the WA 10th Light Horse Organisation, the Friends of Balmoral Cemetery and the Headstone Project. Under the former coalition government, funding was provided to help groups like the Remembrance Army honour these veterans properly. A total of $3.7 million was committed after a successful pilot that placed more than 1,100 markers on unrecognised graves. Before the 2022 election, Labor promised to match that funding, but once in government they walked away from that promise. Their first budget reduced the amount to $1.5 million over four years, and it has since been cut again to just $437,000. To put that in perspective, only $18,000 was spent last year to mark 42 graves. While the latest round of funding from the Albanese government delivered $107,000 in funding to mark the graves of 182 First World War veterans, it is too little and far too few. At that rate, it would take the federal government 280 years to finish recognising all the veterans of the First World War who lie in unmarked graves, and that is before we even begin to consider the tens of thousands from the Second World War who also deserve that recognition. This is not the respect that these veterans deserve. The most concerning aspect uncovered by these researchers is not the quantum of unmarked veteran graves or the slow pace of government to resolve the issue. The most concerning aspect uncovered by these researchers is a sanctioned historical government program that deliberately stripped veterans' graves of their official headstones in the name of administrative convenience. Experts in the field have advised me that, halfway through the last century, the former Anzac Office of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission engaged in a program of decommissioning the headstones of Australian veterans to reduce maintenance costs. Under this program, original upright headstones were removed and replaced with simple tin plaques. Some, however, remain completely unmarked. I contend that this policy failed to treat these veterans with the dignity and respect that they deserved. This is one of those episodes in our national story where we see government decisions made with what were believed to be good intentions only for history to reveal them as mistakes. The maintenance of headstones for the graves of Australian service men and women, people who fought in the service of their country, should never have been reduced to an accounting exercise. I wrote to the veterans affairs minister earlier this year in the interests of transparency and historical accountability and sought answers on this practice. I asked: When did this program begin, and when did it end? What was the policy rationale behind this program? Are there any documents detailing the decision-making processes? How many headstones were removed, and how many tin plaques were installed in their place? Can a list of affected graves, including the names and locations, be made available to assist researchers in their commemorative work? The minister's response, while polite, was disappointingly bureaucratic. It confirmed what many have suspected—that the practice did occur, that it was known to successive governments and that it was quietly signed off on by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in 1972. What it did not provide was accountability. There was no figure on how many graves were affected, no explanation of the criteria for declaring a grave unmaintainable and no evidence that families were properly consulted and that their consent was ever sought. Freedom of information requests made by advocates in the veterans' graves space have also failed to uncover the scale or specifics of this practice. I don't blame the minister or the government for this. They haven't provided clear answers, because the information just isn't available. It seems to me that the historic records of this practice, the practice of Australian governments destroying Australian veterans' headstones, have not been maintained over the decades. It leaves us with an inherent challenge. We don't know how many were affected or when or where this occurred. It will take extensive efforts to get to the bottom of it. We cannot undo what has been done, but we can make it right. I'm calling on the Commonwealth to formally acknowledge that this practice was a historical wrong. It should commission a full public report into the practice of grave decommissioning, publish a full register of affected veterans and where possible restore the original commemorations to their proper resting places. These Australians did their duty for this country. It is time their country did its duty for them. This issue is of great concern to many in my community, who believe that preserving veterans' memorials is a matter of national respect and duty. Our veterans deserve better than to be forgotten in unmarked earth. They deserve a nation that remembers their service with pride in life and in death. I also contend that the government needs to go beyond just correcting this historical wrong. I'm also calling for the Commonwealth to supercharge the Marking (First World War) Private Graves Grants Program so that we can have all graves commemorated by 2028—the 110th anniversary of the Armistice. We should commit ourselves to a marking Second World War private graves grants program that could see all unmarked veterans graves completed by the centenary of the Second World War in 2039. To achieve this, we must back our words with real support. Volunteer groups across the country are already doing the painstaking work of identifying, researching and restoring forgotten graves, but they're doing it on a shoestring. If we are serious about completing this task by 2039, the Commonwealth must invest properly in these community driven efforts. Funding should be made available not just for the physical commemoration of the graves but for the research, verification and administration that underpin it. This would represent a step change in pace and ambition, delivering in next 15 years what the current approach would take many decades to finish. No matter whether they fell in service or not, every Australian who fought to defend our nation deserves to be honoured. Australia's promise to those who served has never been just about medals or parades or ceremonies once or twice a year. It is about remembrance—real, lasting remembrance—written in stone and carried in the national consciousness. These men and women did not hesitate when their country called. The least we can do is ensure that their names are not lost to time or bureaucracy. Let us be the generation that corrects this wrong. Let us ensure that every Australian who fought in these wars is known, remembered and honoured. Tomago Aluminium, Paterson Electorate: Maitland Flyover 94 13:27 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson When governments fail to govern and deliver, they fail to deliver real long-term policy. Communities like mine in Paterson and the broader Hunter region are the ones who pay. The decade of inaction by those opposite was a decade that left our communities to carry the cost of that indecision, short-term policies and their failure to plan for the future. Today I want to talk about two very clear examples of that failure— that systemic and systematic failure—to my community: Tomago Aluminium and the Maitland flyover. As I'm sure you've heard, the situation at Tomago Aluminium is serious. It's complex and it deserves our attention and respect, not political point scoring. For 40 years the Tomago aluminium smelter has been synonymous with manufacturing in the Hunter region. It's an industrial jewel in our blue-collar electorate of Paterson. Tomago is a proud household name that generations of families have given their blood, sweat, tears and wherewithal to, creating an international industrial success story. Indeed, just under 40 per cent of every shred of aluminium that's produced in Australia comes from that plant. Let me say that again: just under 40 per cent of Australia's primary aluminium comes from Tomago Aluminium in my seat of Paterson in the Hunter region. Australians use aluminium in every sphere of their lives. When we shop, it's used to preserve our food and drink. When we're off to the chemist, it's in the packaging that houses our pharmaceuticals. When you travel anywhere today, it's in our cars, trains and planes. For anyone who owns a home, it's in our paint, our window frames and our roofing. For people cooking dinner tonight, it's in the pots and pans. And it's not a Monday morning without leftover Sunday lamb that's been covered in foil—aluminium foil, that is. It's also in our furniture, our sporting goods and the electrical devices we us every day, including laptops and smartphones. Most importantly, aluminium is essential for the construction of powerlines, solar panels and wind turbines. Basically, if you eat, cook, take medicine, use a phone or a computer, consume electricity, travel, play sport, live in a home or sit on a couch, you need aluminium. We have a continuous supply chain right here in Australia, from the bauxite that's extracted out of the ground and then refined to become alumina and then processed, using a lot of electricity, to become that beautiful silver alloy that is aluminium. We have it all here in Australia. But, last month, Tomago took one step closer to closure, with the announcement of employee consultations. As a result, we, as a country, are staring down the battle of producing 40 per cent less of this critical metal. Let's be honest about how we got here. This problem didn't just appear in the last three years, when the Labor government was elected. Despite what the opposition would have you believe, anyone with even a scintilla of understanding of the Australian, or the east coast, energy market would understand that this challenge has been building for more than a decade. For 10 years, the former federal coalition government lurched from one failed energy policy to another, with 23 separate failed energy policies. They couldn't land a single one. They had a decade to provide certainty to support manufacturers to invest in new energy, transmission, storage and renewables. Instead, they gave us chaos and confusion. Under the state Liberal government, Barry O'Farrell sold off our generators, and that has made the issue even more complicated for Tomago. Yes, in 2014, Bayswater and Eraring were sold to AGL for $1.5 billion, and there were others sold as well. Today, we're facing the ramifications of that. We know that energy prices will remain difficult for Tomago over the next decade, not because of anything that has happened in the last three years but because of the decade of neglect and failure prior to that. An honourable member interjecting— Ms SWANSON 264170 It's legitimate to ask hard questions. But it's also important to be honest about why we are where we are, and these are the facts. And I will take that interjection. These are the facts. The facts speak for themselves in this. The other issue I want to raise today is one that has been frustrating the people of Maitland for years now: the Maitland flyover. Back in 2016, when the coalition was in government, my community was crying out for a solution to the gridlock in central Maitland. The traffic congestion was choking the town and making life harder for locals and businesses alike. What did we get? In true Liberal style, we got a job half done. They delivered an eastbound flyover but failed to build, let alone plan, for the westbound one. Anyone who drives through Maitland knows that the problem was always a two-way problem. They ignored it. They took the cheap option, and now we're paying the price. Today, we see the ramifications of that shortsightedness. Maitland is one of the fastest-growing areas in New South Wales. There are thousands of new homes, families and businesses. It's an incredible place to raise a family. But we have one incomplete piece of critical infrastructure that should have been finished years ago. If the former government had shown any foresight, they would have done the job properly. Everyone knows it. All the locals know it. Everyone who's in town knows it. And the people who've just arrived are soon being educated about it. The coalition should have built both flyovers, east and west, together, but instead they left it to the next government, to our government, to clean up the mess. So here we are again, getting on with the job, fixing another of their blunders and making sure the community finally gets the infrastructure it deserves. My constituents don't necessarily actually care which political party gets the credit; they just want the job done safely, efficiently and with respect for their growing community. I learned something off the great Milton Morris. He once said to me, 'Meryl, if you don't care about who gets the credit, you can get a lot achieved.' We don't care about credit. We just want things done—planned and efficiently executed. That's exactly what this Albanese Labor government is doing. We're planning for the long-term, we're funding projects properly, transparently and in partnership with local and state government, and we're not chasing headlines. We're delivering results. What ties these two issues together—Tomago aluminium and the Maitland flyover—is a pattern of neglect and a failure to plan. When those opposite were in government, they were too busy fighting each other to fight for communities like mine. That is the great disappointment in all of this. They failed to plan, they failed to deliver and now Australians and my community, in particular, are living with the consequences. Whether it's energy policy, infrastructure, housing or health, the story is the same—a lost decade of inaction, a decade where they were so busy fighting each other with their climate wars that, sadly, seem to be continuing and so down in the weeds with ideology that they weren't getting on with the practical part of governing a nation. You need to make decisions. You need to plan. You need to be effective. You need to have foresight and strategy, and you need to methodically execute that strategy. You need to deliver. That is what is happening under our government. We are different. We want to do things thoroughly, well and steadily. In our prime minister, we have a man that has a steady hand on the tiller. He is someone who has a strategy and is executing it. That is so important. We don't need more chaos and division. We don't need more mixed signalling to the international investment community about whether to invest in Australia or not. We are a reliable partner. We will continue to deliver for the Australian community. We are rebuilding local infrastructure, not just announcing it. We are supporting regional communities, and we're going continue to deliver for those communities. Debate adjourned Sitting suspended from 13:36 to 15:59 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 95 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Gambling Advertising 95 15:59 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi It is racing season in Australia, from small country tracks to today's Melbourne Cup—the race that stops the nation. It is also, sadly, for many people, peak gambling season. I'm here today not to speak of gambling per se but to speak of the pernicious impacts of gambling advertising, because you cannot turn on the television, stream a sporting match or scroll social media without being bombarded by a tsunami of ads selling false hopes, easy wins and good times. The gambling lobby insists it is harmless entertainment, but we all know that Australians are not buying that. Let's be honest, those three-second disclaimers, rattled off at triple speed at the end of those ads, do nothing to counter the damage. By then, the harm is already done. Australians know the scourge of gambling harm has gone too far. Indeed, the late Peta Murphy was a powerhouse in this place—much loved, deeply admired by many. When I was speaking on her passing I recalled meeting her at 'pollies kindergarten'—the place we all go when we begin our time here—and my first impression was this: crikey, this woman will take no prisoners. But the truth is we're all prisoners of the gambling lobby. Her landmark report, You win some, you lose more, laid out the roadmap for gambling reform. If the government had acted on its recommendations, we would have removed more than a million gambling ads from our screens and airwaves in the last year alone. This is not radical reform; it is a duty care to Australians. As legislators, we have responsibility to protect the health and wellbeing of our constituents. It was reported by Roy Morgan last week that an estimated 622,000 people have serious gambling problems. If any other condition caused the level of harm gambling does, we would have declared this a national emergency yet we continue to wait for this government to act, and Australians are rightly asking why. Constituents across my electorate often ask me why meaningful action has not been taken, and the answer sadly lies around who gets access to power. Research from the Grattan Institute shows industries most affected by regulation like gambling, property and fossil fuels dominate political donations, lobbying contracts and meetings with senior ministers. This has to stop. The gambling industry is dramatically over-represented in every measure of political influence compared to its contribution to the economy. These are industries whispering at the door, saying, 'Don't worry about us; you don't need law,' even when the evidence screams the opposite. Australians are screaming for this to end, and I call on the government to act now. Middle East 96 16:02 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I recently had the opportunity to sit down with students from Coburg High School to discuss advocacy for peace in the Middle East. The students were thoughtful and deeply passionate. They came ready with considered questions and asked me to discuss my reflections on these today. The loss of innocent life that has occurred on and since October 7 in Gaza is horrific, and we all agree that the suffering must end. I've consistently called for a permanent ceasefire and return of hostages over the past two years and I welcome the recent ceasefire and release of hostages. It is all our hope that this ceasefire holds. But, I stress, it is the first of many more steps that will need to be taken to secure long-term peace in the region. The challenges of political transition, a security framework and economic reconstruction in Gaza are immense. During our meeting, the students asked why Australia has not placed sanctions on Israel in the same way we have on Russia. I discussed how Australia has placed sanctions on two Israeli cabinet ministers as well as targeted financial sanctions on various entities. A straightforward answer for the students is that, while Australia has never been a major player in the region, when applying sanctions they are most effective in getting results when done in conjunction with partners such as we have done with the UK, Canada and New Zealand. The students also asked me why we have not been referring to what is happening in Gaza as 'genocide'. I explained that we publicly support international law and the work of international tribunals such as the ICJ and the ICC. In 2024, the ICJ made a provisional ruling that Palestinians in Gaza have plausible right to protection from genocide and ordered Israel to take steps to prevent that. The Australian government supported this. As a matter of important principle, though, it is not in the power of or appropriate for any lawmaker in this place to make determinations on war crimes or genocide. I say that because we have entrusted these international tribunals, through their judicial processes, with prosecutions based on evidence presented to make these determinations on breaches of international humanitarian law such as war crimes and genocide. The students also asked why it has taken so long for countries around the world to recognise Palestine. I explained my longstanding support for Palestinian self-determination and statehood and that I have supported this cause, peace through a two-state solution, for decades. I am hoping, as are we all, that, as we enter the next phase of the ceasefire, Palestinians will be afforded the safety to rebuild lives. Peace can only be achieved through a two-state solution—Palestinians and Israelis living side by side in peace and security. It is, has been and will ever be the only viable solution that affords peace and a secure future for both peoples. Fundamentally, that peace will only come when Israelis and Palestinians accept that the annihilation of the other can no longer and never will be a path forward. The conversations with these students was over an hour long. We touched on a lot of topics. We spoke about their thoughts and the Australian government's work in this place. We agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but it was an important conversation that was worth having. It was worth sharing their perspectives. Thank you to the students of Coburg High School for your engagement and your advocacy. Early Childhood Education 96 16:05 Mr GEE 261393 Calare It's an honour to recognise a group of unsung heroes who underpin our communities: our early childhood educators. On the weekend it was my privilege to officially open the 2025 Central West Early Childhood Awards, presented by the Central West Early Childhood Collaborative. The awards, held in Bathurst, brought together around 300 early childhood educators from across the Central West. The awards recognise centres, leaders and educators who strive for excellence, create meaningful learning experiences and build strong connections with families and communities. These wonderful people are nurturing the promise of our region and our nation, and they deserve our sincere gratitude and appreciation. I would particularly like to thank the founder of the awards, Katherine Wilson, who is a truly inspirational leader in early childhood education. I also thank her fellow members of the Central West Early Childhood Collaborative, Kim Laird, Brad Campbell, Haylie Sloan, Janine Lewis and Samantha Stevenson. I also congratulate the wonderful nominees and award winners. The Molly Ticehurst memorial award for outstanding educator cert III went to Ivy Stack. Mila, Suphinda Wongsamphankhiri won the outstanding early childhood educator diploma award. Jan Mills was awarded the Charles Sturt University outstanding early childhood teacher. The outstanding early childhood trainee award went to Maddison Hotham. Meg Corby was awarded the out-of-school-hours educator. The outstanding family daycare educator award went to Susannah Davey. Carlie Chapman won the Samara Golding-Piper memorial award for excellence in leadership. The outstanding achievement award for everyday excellence went to Elly Mackinnon. And the families choice award winners, voted on by families, were Rachael Denning, for diploma; Tiarnah Maddams, for trainee; Haylee McIntosh, for certificate III; Sushil Khadka, for early childhood teacher; Amanda McGothigan, for daycare educator; and Caitlyn McDonald, for outside school hours. I also congratulate Pied Piper Preschool from Wallarawang for excellence in pedagogy and practice, Waratah Early Learning Centre, Orange, was awarded excellence in food and menu. Excellence in sustainability was awarded to Circle Early Learning, Blayney. Rise Early Learning, Orange, was awarded for excellence in team work and culture. Eugowra Community Children's Centre won two awards: the excellence in community award and the award for respectfully integrating First Nations knowledge and perspectives. And the award for excellence in inclusion went to Forbes Learning Ladder. Again, my congratulations go to all the winners and to the Central West Early Childhood Collaborative for a truly inspirational awards ceremony. We are very grateful for the wonderful work of all our early childhood educators. On behalf of this parliament, I thank and recognise them all. Meals on Wheels, Diwali, Christ Church Yeronga 97 16:08 Ms CAMPBELL 312823 Moreton I forgot the bread rolls. Last year I had the great pleasure of going on my first solo meals-on-wheels run at Meals on Wheels Sunnybank/Salisbury and I forgot them. Luckily, Sunnybank/Salisbury Meals on Wheels has a lot of fantastic volunteers who could pick up the slack when it came to delivering those bread rolls. I do want to thank Judy Evans and Karthik, who work at that Meals on Wheels. I'm incredibly lucky because I've got an electorate that has a few. We've got Meals on Wheels in Acacia Ridge, Sherwood and Yeronga. Their motto is 'More than just a Meal', and it's really true, because those volunteers provide not only a meal for vulnerable Australians—in particular, older Australians—but also a welcome relief when it comes to company and tackling social isolation. It's been a challenging year for our Meals on Wheels—that was reported back by Sharon Willingham at the Brisbane South Meals on Wheels AGM I went to a while ago—with Cyclone Alfred shutting down the Sunnybank centre for many, many days. But, despite all that, 245,000 meals were delivered in the 2025 financial year, and I thank them for that. Thousands of my local constituents have been celebrating Diwali and Deepavali over the last few weeks—indeed, for some, over the last month. It's known as the Festival of Lights and it celebrates the victory of good over evil, of light over darkness and of knowledge over ignorance. At a time when we know that people have been pulling at the thread of our multicultural tapestry, it has never been more important to celebrate events like this. In my local community, the Hindu Council of Australia hosted celebrations at Rocklea. Over 7,000 people were there. I want to thank Rajesh Verma, the president of the Hindu Council of Australia, with the Hindu Council supporting our community for over 25 years. In my community, there was also the Brisbane Diwali Sports Carnival and Kabaddi Cup. If you've never watched kabaddi, it's a combination of wrestling and rugby and it's a great watch. Thank you to the FICQ and its president, Dr Preethi Suraj, and the Tamil Association of Queensland and its president, Karthick Elangovan. I thank everyone for enjoying and celebrating these events and the volunteers for organising those celebrations. Lastly, I want to pay tribute to the Anglican Parish of Yeronga, also known as Christ Church Yeronga. They lost their rectory in a fire in early August—a 120-year-old Queenslander, which provided accommodation for community members in need. The community, with Reverend Rebecca King, ran a 'phoenix' event to raise money so that they could rebuild. The volunteers that came together are rebuilding that place, because our community will always help each other when times are tough. Flynn Electorate: Roads 98 16:12 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn The Labor government's plan to slash speed limits on rural roads in poor condition is an outrageous, lazy solution to a serious issue facing rural and regional people across the country. Labor minister Catherine King is proposing to reduce speed limits on dirt, gravel or sealed roads in need of repair in response to the worsening national road toll. This 'solution' will halt regional productivity and will not address one of the root causes of the problem—that is, road underfunding and road deterioration. Across the Flynn electorate, poor road conditions remain one of the most prominent issues that locals are facing, with plenty of roads in need of repair. The solution to help make our rural roads safer is to maintain, upgrade and improve the roads themselves, not slow down regional productivity. I urge local transport operators, small businesses, farmers and councils to make submissions to the government's consultation before the 10 November closing date about how their communities would be impacted by speed limit reductions on rural, regional and remote Australian roads. A constituent of mine named Darren, who has extensive experience in setting speed limits as a former crash investigator, recently forwarded his submission to my office—and he hit the nail on the head. His submission stated: Living in a rural location in Queensland I am well aware of the tyranny of distance. Most of the people advocating lower limits live in urban areas and have no real appreciation of the amount of time rural people spend on the road accessing basic services, so any reduction in speed limits will have a major impact on rural residents. Fining rural residents for traveling at fair speeds will result in many losing their licences from demerit point accumulation which means they will no longer be able to live in these areas as driving is the only transport option available. Then there are the economic costs. Travel times equate to real costs to the economy. Given the huge distances in rural Australia even slight changes in speed limits can result in substantial inflation of transport costs and lost productivity due to time spent traveling. Regional Australia's economy is on the line here. The government has an obligation to protect the lives of every Australian, so they should get on with it and fund rural and regional roads. Submissions can be made through the Australian government's Infrastructure website or by emailing officeofroadsafety@infrastructure.gov.au. I implore the minister to reassess this crazy notion of limiting speed on these rural and regional roads. Makin Electorate: Schools 98 16:14 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin As we draw towards the end of the year I expect that, as I do, all members of this place will be attending year 12 graduation ceremonies in their electorates. They are special events that I look forward to, and I make every effort to attend the ceremonies of each of the public and private schools in the Makin electorate. Every school has its own individual way of celebrating year 12 graduations, and so they are all very different. However, for all the differences, there are important similarities in all the graduations. The first is the genuine care for the students shown by the respective teachers and other school staff and the reciprocal respect and gratitude students have for their teachers. The second is the impressive maturity and development of the students, who have reached a milestone in their lives, having completed some 12 years of structured education, and are about to embark on their own direction in life. We live in a time where, for all the supports and mod cons, for young people life can be so difficult. They are constantly influenced by the world around them. Additionally, peer pressure, bullying, self-esteem, image and exam preparation can all be disruptive influences on their lives, in a world that is already bursting with stress and anxiety. No-one understands these pressures better than the teachers who educate, guide and nurture the students on a daily basis at such a critical time in their lives. They listen to their stories and struggles with a sympathetic ear. These are teachers who simultaneously have their own personal lives and responsibilities to deal with—teachers whom I see on graduation nights filled with pride at seeing their year 12s graduate but also showing a touch of sadness as they say goodbye to the young people who have been so much a part of their lives. I thank staff at the following high schools in the Makin electorate: Banksia Park International High School, Endeavour College, Garden College, Gleeson College, Golden Grove High School, the Heights School, Kings Baptist Grammar School, Modbury High School, Para Hills High School, Parafield Gardens High School, Pedare Christian College, Pinnacle College, Roma Mitchell Secondary College, Salisbury East High School, Torrens Valley Christian School, Tyndale Christian School and Valley View Secondary School. I say thank you for all you do, year in and year out, in preparing young people in your care for their future as they consider their careers and ultimately make their contribution as future leaders of society. We owe all of those schools and their staff our genuine and sincere gratitude. To the graduates of 2025, I wish you well with your exam results and every success in your future. Apprenticeships 99 16:17 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise today to call out this government's failure on employer incentives for apprentices. From January, Labor will slash employer incentives for apprentices from $5,000 to $4,000 per apprentice. That's a thousand dollars less support for every small business that is doing the right thing by training the next generation, giving young Australians a start and keeping our economy moving. Without skilled workers we can't build homes, we can't keep the lights on and we can't maintain the roads, the hospitals or the infrastructure that makes our country work. Yet, at the very moment when Australia's skills pipeline is on life support, the Albanese Labor government has decided to pull the plug. It may not sound like much to those sitting on the other side of the chamber, but, to a small-business owner trying to keep the doors open, every single dollar counts. At a time when almost 15,000 businesses have gone broke under Labor's watch in the last year alone, this decision is not just short-sighted; it's reckless. When the coalition was in government, the apprentice system was strong. We saw record highs of over 428,000 Australians in training, confidence was high, businesses were hiring, and apprentices were coming through the system in record numbers. But today, under Labor, there are 107,000 fewer apprentices training in the system. That is 107,000 fewer young Australians learning a trade. That's not just a statistic; that's tens of thousands of careers that'll never be started and small businesses that will never grow. The reality is that wages are going up and the costs of business are going up, especially energy costs. Compliance is getting harder, red tape is getting thicker and small-business owners are being pushed to the limit. The only thing going down under Labor is the support for employers who take on the apprentices. It's madness. Labor decision shows a government completely out of touch with the reality facing businesses and tradies on the ground today. Their ideological opposition to backing employers is driving our skills system into the ground and threatening the next generation of tradespeople. Labor is talking a big game about solving the housing crisis, but you can't build more homes without more tradies. If you can't train more tradies without employers, who can afford to take them on? Cutting support for them now is the wrong time. That's why I, along with industry leaders and peak bodies across the country, are calling on the Albanese government to urgently reinstate and strengthen employer incentives, before the 1 January deadline, to restore confidence and to protect Australia's future workforce. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Without them, apprentices will collapse. I'd asked the minister to reconsider on behalf of the sector. Maribyrnong Electorate 99 16:20 Ms BRISKEY 263427 Maribyrnong I'd like to begin by recognising two fantastic constituents of mine, Tommy and his neighbour Mark, who are making a real difference for stroke in childhood. Tommy's stroke journey began at just 12 years old, when he experienced a stroke. From that experience, he set himself an ambitious target, an ambitious goal, looking to reach the four points of Australia to raise funds and awareness for childhood stroke survivors and to support research into stroke onset, an area that has long been understudied. Completing the journey in stages, and finishing in 2023, Tommy overcame enormous challenges along the way, including pandemic disruptions and a serious accident when he was hit by a car, breaking his pelvis. With running now limited, cycling has become the focus of his future endeavours, including a smaller ride—'3 Points/Taking on Tassie'. Together, these efforts have raised $155,000 for the Stroke Foundation. Looking ahead, the upcoming ride, Howlong to Canberra, aims to coincide with Childhood Stroke Awareness Week, connecting directly with politicians and stakeholders to advocate for the 85 per cent of childhood stroke survivors living with lifelong impacts. Stories like Tommy's are a reminder of the resilience and determination that exists in our community, qualities that are equally evident in our young people. And in that spirit, I want to congratulate all our year 12 students across Maribyrnong, who are fast approaching the end of their 13 years of hard work and dedication. Finishing school is a major achievement, reflecting the perseverance, commitment and effort that these students have shown over the years. I'd also like to acknowledge their parents, guardians and families whose support has been essential in helping students reach this point. Your guidance, encouragement and care have made all the difference. As students prepare for their final exams, I wish them every success. These exams are an important step, but they are not the final destination. They are the starting gun for the next chapter of life. Whether it's further study, vocational training, apprenticeships or entering the workforce, there are many paths ahead. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognise and congratulate our outgoing Moonee Valley mayor, Ava Adams, who has finished her first term. I also acknowledge the outgoing deputy mayor, Fran Cosgriff, who also concluded her term. We've now seen the election of the new mayor for Moonee Valley, Rose Iser, and the new deputy mayor for Moonee Valley, Phil Burn. Two fantastic local councillors who I'm really excited to work with over the course of their term. By working across government—local, state and federal—we'll deliver for our wonderful communities across the Moonee Valley. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 11788 In thanking the member for Maribyrnong, I acknowledge her family in the gallery. Stephen Crawford Memorial Golf Day 100 16:23 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee This Friday, 7 November, the beautiful Riverside Golf Club in Nichols Point, in my electorate of Mallee, will host the Stephen Crawford Memorial Golf Day. The event is run by the local community, for local tradies and others, supporting men's health and the Movember Foundation. The golf day, proudly supported by Total Tools Mildura, honours Stephen Crawford, taken too soon by bowel cancer in February 2022. Since the first golf day in 2021, this event has raised more than $100,000 for the Movember Foundation. The Stephen Crawford Memorial Golf Day honours a Total Tools team member's husband, and quickly became something much bigger. Total Tools and the team saw an opportunity to make a real community impact, and they have. It's more than just a golf day; it's a testament to what a small community can achieve when they come together with purpose. The team's efforts were recently recognised with a nomination for a Movember award. I had the pleasure of attending this magnificent charity event for the first time last year, in my previous role as the shadow minister for regional health. I promoted preventive health measures in my electorate, where we have higher morbidity and mortality rates from preventable diseases. I assisted this year by facilitating provision of free health checks via self-service machines provided by SiSU Health. Novo Nordisk has generously funded the provision of these free health checks. The public will be able to come and access a health check even if they are not participating in the golf day—good news for all the wives, perhaps. Another Mildura local taken too soon was Scott Umback, lost in 2019 of a heart attack, aged just 42. His wife, Katrina Umback, is a passionate and driven advocate for improving access to preventive care for men to ensure others do not experience the same loss she and her boys have endured. Katrina teamed up with La Trobe University to secure a Medical Research Future Fund grant to research and co-design a kit for rural Australians to check their heart health at home. The kit features portable devices for measuring blood pressure, fasting glucose and cholesterol. Katrina says: This study is a gamechanger for rural and regional Australians, especially those in a city like Mildura, with no Catheterisation Lab or accessible heart disease screening programs. I'm looking forward to being out at Nichols Point again on Friday morning, promoting preventive heart health and men's health in Sunraysia. Fraser Electorate: Community Events 100 16:26 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I pay tribute to the North Sunshine Eagles, who again successfully hosted the Albanian Cup last weekend. This annual soccer tournament draws teams from around Australia. It is a celebration of the national Albanian community and also the food, culture and customs of Albania. Congratulations to the incredible committee and dozens of volunteers who organised an event that drew the attendance of over 10,000 people, with over 2.1 million views on social media and counting. Congratulations to the winning team, Shepparton, who defeated last year's champions, Adelaide, 2-1 in the final. Recently, I attended the mid-autumn festival in Sunshine. This event, hosted by the Vietnamese Museum Australia, has become a highlight on the calendar. It celebrated the contribution of Vietnamese refugees and migrants and their families and all they have given to Fraser and beyond. For decades now this community has been weaving its influence into the fabric of Melbourne's west. This festival has a family focus and included a lantern parade for young children. I would like to thank the VMA for putting on such a fantastic event, and I hope to score an invite for next year. I also had the honour of attending the Republic of Vietnam veterans ceremony. Many in our community experienced the fall of Saigon and the tumultuous period that followed. The hardships and heartache of that time are carried in the memories of so many who fled to our shores and made their home in Fraser. They have contributed so much to the community since. But, just as we remember the fall, we honour the fight. The courage and the valour of the Vietnamese veterans inspire us all. I thank the Vietnam Veterans Association for the invitation to such an important and moving event, particularly in this year when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Vietnamese settlement in Australia. I had the pleasure of attending the Diwali festival at the Melbourne mandir. The festival was a kaleidoscope of colour, lights, dancing and traditional food, a testament to the beauty and vibrance of Hindu culture. The festival's core theme, the celebration of triumph of good over evil, is befitting of an organisation that gives so much to the people it serves. I thank the Melbourne mandir for their hospitality. Of course, because one Diwali isn't enough, last weekend I also celebrated Diwali with the West Footscray Traders Association. The traders association put on a phenomenal event, along with the Footscray Bulldogs. I thank them for hosting that also. I'd also like to take the time to recognise the representation that they offer to small businesses of the west. For decades, the association has served as a bulwark for local entrepreneurship. They continue today to represent the interests of some of our community's most industrious members. I thank the association for their invitation to this event, which has become such an important item on the calendar of Fraser and Melbourne's broader west. Oasis Townsville 101 16:29 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson If the fine men and women of the Australian Defence Force are brave enough to put their bodies and their lives on the line to keep us safe, the very least we should do is promise to protect them when their duty is done. But, right now, that promise is being broken in my electorate of Dawson. In the garrison city of Townsville, the Oasis stands as a lifeline, a home base for those who've worn the uniform and for their families, who have stood shoulder to shoulder with them. But, come early 2026, unless urgent and sustainable funding is secured, the Oasis will close its doors. And then what happens? It won't be just a building that shuts; it will be a lifeline that is severed. This is not just another local facility. The Oasis was ground zero for Operation Compass, the trial that shaped the nation's veterans and families hubs that we have today. It was built to give veterans a place to connect, to heal, to rebuild and to have a sense of belonging. Belonging cannot be built on a short-term basis. It needs grants and community fundraising. It requires a commitment. It requires leadership, and it requires a government that honours the service of those who have given everything for our country. We don't need another inquiry to tell us why this matters. We know the statistics, and they are heartbreaking. Between 1997 and 2023, an average of three veterans died by suicide every fortnight. Ex-servicemen are 26 per cent more likely to die by suicide and ex-servicewomen are twice as likely. Suicide is the leading cause of death for ex-service men and women under 30. Those are not just statistics. That's a generation of promise. While those numbers should be enough to move mountains, the Oasis is left fighting for survival. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed the government a clear roadmap. Recommendation 86 called for sustainable funding for the 17 veterans hubs nationwide, and the government agreed, Yet, more than a year later, nothing has changed. I've written to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs urging immediate action. These veterans don't need more inquiries or promises. They need a lifeline. These men and women fought for our existence. The least we can do is fight for theirs. This government must honour the commitment that has already been made by implementing recommendations 86 in full, to deliver sustainable operational funding. When we stand with our veterans, we stand by the best of who Australians really are. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 101 16:32 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton I rise to read one of the selected speeches I received from students in Barton through the Raise Our Voice in Parliament initiative. This one comes from Angela, Dhanvi, Swara, Jaai and Grace from Kogarah Public School. I want to thank them for their passionate and insightful submission. They say the following: As young Australians, we know how important mental health is for our future. We want to see change that ensures every student feels supported, valued, and able to thrive. Too many students face body-shaming, insecurities, and judgement every single day, often made worse by the pressures of social media. It's no surprise that 1 in 7 Australians aged 4 to 17 experience mental health challenges. These struggles affect how we learn, how we connect with others, and how we see ourselves. But we believe it doesn't have to stay this way. The government can make a difference. First, by funding more school-based programs so every student has access to help during and after school. Second, by creating awareness campaigns that show it's okay to ask for support and that no one is alone. Third, by upskilling young Australians by integrating real strategies for resilience, online safety, and wellbeing into the school syllabus. We want to see it, and we know it will make a difference. This is about more than today, it's about tomorrow. Supporting students' mental health means shaping a future where young Australians are confident, resilient, and ready to lead. With the right support today, we can ensure tomorrow's Australia is filled with resilient, healthy, and empowered young people. It is so important to highlight in my community of Kogarah Public School— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:34 to 16:45 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 That speech is a really good reflection of the kinds of students that we have in my electorate of Barton. Kogarah Public School has amazing students like the students who provided this speech. I had an opportunity to meet them. They're so passionate about these issues, particularly those around mental health and also the introduction of the social media ban that's occurring in December. Kogarah Public School might have the future MP for Barton at play there, and I'd like to thank them for their contribution. Bureau of Meteorology 102 16:46 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor The Bureau of Meteorology has just spent $4.1 million creating a new website that delivers net zero benefits in weather information. Social media, particularly rural and regional pages like Farm Twitter, has been burning up with comments like 'epic fail', 'the worst website redesign for many years' and 'improvements that result in less transparency and usability'. There are others who helpfully provide a link back to the old version, particularly for radar observations. My staff have taken calls and had visits from constituents who could not comprehend how the Bureau of Meteorology could get it so wrong. An elderly constituent from Esperance complained that the font and colour scheme were badly designed for those with poor vision. She said she's struggling to read it even with a magnifying glass, and the ability to enlarge text seems to have disappeared. She was also unhappy that the new map coverage did not give her the ability to predict inclement weather. I believe this helpful lady shares this information with her fellow seniors so they can plan to leave their homes on their mobility scooters to shop and to meet up. She now has no confidence as to how long the clear weather will last or when the bad weather will hit. A farmer from Ravensthorpe who flies a plane also said he wanted the colour gradient from the old website to return. He's actually colourblind, an affliction that affects eight per cent of men. He felt that the previous radar map provided easy-to-comprehend wind speed and direction, temperature and rain information, with a colour gradient that made sense to the colourblind. With grain harvest well and truly underway in WA, farmers want and need accurate forecasts to plan and manage the delivery and storage of grain. The $4.1 million cost of the new website is outrageous if it has not improved the functionality and reliability for users. After spending $866 million across seven years on the Robust project, you would think that the bureau could get the public-facing website right. People want to check the radar and see relevant information at a glance, not click through layers of content or try to interpret what the colours mean. Words and symbols on a map matter and provide meaning. The Albanese government and the Bureau of Meteorology have failed to deliver what is a critical tool for regional businesses and individuals. These people rely on accurate weather reporting that makes sense and is user friendly. More resources should be directed to daily forecasting and fewer to climate modelling and homogenisation of past data. This is the weather forecast that the good people of O'Connor rely on to make everyday decisions, not climate change modelling for COP31. Climate Change 102 16:49 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Where is the sensible centre that the opposition leader claims to occupy? Just a short time ago, the coalition told us that they accepted the science, the economics and the opportunity of a net zero future. The leader of the coalition said that it was her strong belief that rural and regional Australia has lots to benefit from in the move to net zero. 'This opportunity is huge,' she said. 'I think that net zero by 2050 aim is perfect.' Now, it's being used as a bargaining chip to save the opposition leader's political skin. I've heard from young people, local vineyards, small business owners, big business. They are planning for a net zero future. They are investing in solar and batteries on their homes. They are moving their vehicle fleets over to electric. They are putting money into R&D to drive innovation in the way we make things and the way in which we deliver our services for a green energy future. In Western Australia, in the member for O'Connor's electorate, one of our newest goldmines, the Bellevue project, is aiming to run on up to 90 per cent renewables. Already they have had times where they're operating on 100 per cent renewables. Their motivation is not just to save on the substantial cost of diesel. Bellevue say some gold buyers are now seeking to buy sustainably mined gold. Meanwhile, elsewhere in Western Australia, where road transport distances are no joke, companies like EPCA, Janus, Kempower and Chargefox are working to convert our trucking fleets to electric. And just this week, Nick Carter, CEO of Akaysha Energy, was named in TIMEmagazine's 100 most influential climate leaders. Akaysha is building the Waratah Super Battery, the world 's most powerful battery, on the former Munmorah coal-fired power station site in New South Wales. This will be acting as a shock absorber for the power network across New South Wales. CEO Carter says: This issue is too big and critical not to have a bipartisan stance … …   …   … Everyone needs to get aligned … Stop fighting and get aligned for the common good. That's the message from industry to the opposition. Let's get on with it. Our nation, our climate, our future will not wait for members opposite to find a political backbone. The people of Hasluck and the people across Australia demand consistency, clarity and commitment, not this flip-flopping that leaves our economy, our communities and our environment in limbo. So, while the coalition is in a perpetual state of confusion and indecision, on this side of the House we remain clear—net zero by 2050, backed by real action—because our communities are relying on us to deliver a stable and prosperous future. Western Australia: Goods and Services Tax 103 16:52 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest This week, WA Premier Roger Cook and Treasurer Rita Saffioti are in town here in Canberra meeting with Prime Minister Albanese as fairness fighters for our GST deal, which, of course, was legislated by the last coalition government. But it begs the question as to what's going on between the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and the WA government themselves. Maybe it's because they saw how easily they steamrolled him on a $217 million racetrack that nobody seems to want, but they're seriously worried about WA's federal Labor MPs being rolled here in Canberra. I don't want to be unfair to the member for Perth. After all, there are 11 federal Labor MPs and five Labor senators to get on the plane every week to come to Canberra when we're sitting, so it'd be churlish to blame him alone. But, finally, under much pressure after the election, the PM has included an extra cabinet minister from the great state of WA, which wasn't a small increase, but rather a 100 per cent increase, in representation for WA, because we previously had, in the first term of the Albanese government, just one cabinet minister from WA, which is a long, long way short of the five cabinet ministers from WA that we had in the last coalition government. So why don't Roger and Rita trust any of them, or trust all of them? More to the point, if WA Labor can't trust their own federal MPs to ensure that our great state of WA is not left one dollar worse off under the GST deal, then why should Western Australians have confidence in them either? This isn't the first time that Roger and Rita have blown money on some advocacy here in Canberra. Just last year they opened an embassy one kilometre from here, down the road in Canberra. What a joke! Hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent, outgoings and staff, yet 17 federal Labor politicians come here to represent WA every sitting week. Again, why do WA Labor have no confidence in the WA federal Labor team? There's only one test for the Prime Minster when it comes to the GST deal, and that's ensuring that the state of Western Australia is not left a single dollar worse off. He's promised it. Now he needs to deliver it. The Prime Minster is very happy to pocket millions of dollars in royalties and taxes that are generated by WA's mining and resources sectors in particular, so the last thing he should do is breach a solemn promise to the good folks of WA and penalise our success. At the end of the day, the resources and mining industries in WA were built on successive governments backing the private sector to do what it does well. If the Prime Minster thinks he can treat WA like a cash cow, he will be reminded of how important WA is at the ballot box. Sudan 103 16:55 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Last time I rose for a constituency statement, I raised the humanitarian crisis in Sudan and Darfur and I'm afraid I have to do so again because, despite hopes the situation would improve, the situation has gotten much, much worse. Since I last spoke in the House, the city of El Fasher has fallen to the RSF, and there are reports of the most unspeakable humanitarian crisis unfolding. Since this dispute began in 2023, conservatively 150,000 people have been killed. It is highly likely to be a much bigger number than that. The number of people currently suffering acute hunger is akin to the population of our country. Around 25 million people are estimated to be undergoing acute hunger. Recently, with the fall of El Fasher, 65,000 people fled the city immediately. Tens of thousands remain trapped in El Fasher with no food, very little water and no medical assistance. Before the final assault, the city held approximately 260,000 residents; now it's much fewer. The world is replete with humanitarian crises. Some are getting a lot of attention and they deserve it, but this crisis deserves more attention. I'm very grateful to the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Kingsford Smith and Assistant Minister Julian Hill, who recently met with my constituents who are representatives of the Zaghawa union, who I am in regular contact with, who have lost contact with relatives and now do not know if their brothers, sisters and cousins are alive or dead. Tragically, in far too many instances, they are almost certainly dead—but they are unable to make contact. I'm grateful to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and the member for Cowan, Minister Anne Aly, for the statement she issued recently, and the work of the foreign minister, who updated our Labor caucus on this matter yesterday. This is a humanitarian crisis of the most unspeakable nature. I'm glad that our country, which is a long way away with limited ability to influence events in North Africa, is doing what it can. But given the number of my constituents who have come to Australia and fled Sudan, who look at this crisis and weep and wonder and fear for the prospects of their family who they left behind, it is right that this parliament spends a few minutes focusing on this crisis, on this most grievous humanitarian disaster, which is unfurling before the eyes of the world and is not in my view getting enough attention from the world. Australia is doing its small bit but it is time to focus on the crisis in Sudan. Illicit Tobacco And Vapes 104 16:58 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash I rise to speak on the unfolding national crisis that has hit my community in Monash most significantly in recent weeks. I speak about the illegal tobacco trade, which is terrorising Australian small business owners, seeing retail staff assaulted, and seeing the ATO shortchanged. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Longwarry Friendly Grocer store in my electorate, a great local small business—they do the right thing and contribute to the community—received a ransom note. The owners did all the right things and went to the police, didn't pay the ransom, and, a couple of days later, a ram raid destroyed half their shop. I rang Janet, the business owner, a couple of days after. She said, 'We got the ransom note, and my husband and I looked at the CCTV at our shop day after day. We didn't sleep.' Eventually, at 3:30 in the morning, a car was rammed through their business. We need to have a national and honest national conversation about where things are at with the illegal tobacco trade. We saw another five per cent increase in the excise tax at the start of the new financial year. That has seen a 282 per cent increase since the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government in 2013. What those sharp increases are doing is driving people to the illegal market. We saw in the 2022-23 financial year over $6 billion in illicit tobacco attempted to be smuggled into the Australian market. If they are not being imported then illegal cigarettes are being stolen from legal retailers and sold on the black market. At the moment, the ATO gets to pocket about $28 out of a legal pack of cigarettes, which retail for about $50. On the illegal market, they sell for anywhere between $10 and $15. I think we seriously need to look at the excise tax. I'm proposing that we look at taking it back to 2018-19 levels, which would effectively see a legal packet of cigarettes go back to $25. If the excise tax increases were working on deterring people from smoking, I would be the first to support them. But the fact is that they are not. ABS stats show that there has been a 22 per cent drop in the smoking rate, but the Australian Crime Intelligence Commission's wastewater report shows that more people are taking up smoking or that there was more tobacco in the wastewater last year than there was eight years ago. I have serious concerns that we have already seen one person killed. I have serious concerns about more people being harmed or hurt further in the illegal tobacco wars. I am calling on the government to review its position. WorldSkills Australia, Reading Friends Australia 104 17:01 Ms BERRY 23497 Whitlam I rise today to congratulate Archie Wilkinson, an apprentice plumber in my electorate who won a gold medal at the WorldSkills Australia National Championships in Brisbane earlier this year. These championships celebrate and showcase vocational excellence, and this year's competition featured over 600 apprentices, trainees and students, who competed over three days across more than 60 skills categories, including Archie's chosen field of plumbing. Following his gold medal in Brisbane, Archie was one of 39 apprentices selected for the WorldSkills Australia national training squad. This is the first step towards gaining a place on the Australian team, the Skillaroos, that will compete against more than 60 other countries at the 48th WorldSkills competition in Shanghai in September next year. In September this year, Archie joined his training squad teammates on a visit to Parliament House, where he met the Minister for Skills and Training and also the Prime Minister. The Australian government proudly supports the WorldSkills program, which plays a vital role in encouraging young Australians to pursue skills based careers. Archie Wilkinson studied at TAFE in Goulburn and is now employed by Graham Isedale Plumbing in Mittagong, which is in the Southern Highlands region within my electorate. I congratulate Archie on all he has achieved so far, and I wish him all the best as he trains to gain selection for the Skillaroos. I also rise today to recognise Reading Friends Australia, a not-for-profit organisation that encapsulates two things I am passionate about: education and community spirit. I'm proud to say that Reading Friends Australia is based in my electorate of Whitlam and that it organises scores of volunteers to assist children at 25 schools across New South Wales to practise reading. Reading Friends Australia trains volunteers and works with each school to tailor its service to suit the individual students at that school. Recent research has found that one in three children in Australia struggle to read well. Reading Friends Australia try to address this problem and, since 2019, they have been working hard to improve the reading skills of Australian children. All this is powered by volunteers. Helping children improve their reading to increase their confidence and enable them to reach their full potential is an extremely valuable contribution on the part of these generous volunteers. Learning to read well is not only valuable for self-esteem; it's critical to future education, training and employment. Earlier this month I had the great pleasure of meeting Luciana De Michiel, the founder of Reading Friends Australia, as well as several volunteers. I was delighted to be able to listen to children practise their reading and to see how rewarding this was for both the children and the volunteers involved. I commend all those involved with Reading Friends Australia for making such a valuable contribution to our community and our future. Small Business 105 17:04 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge, Candice Kiss, the Moreton Bay Businesswoman of the Year, a hospitality entrepreneur and a dedicated small-business owner and operator. At the recent Moreton Bay Business and Innovation Awards, Candice's team achieved remarkable recognition, with her employee Olivia Tulloch being honoured as employee of the year and her cafe Annie Lane receiving the customer service excellence award. These accolades highlight not only Candice's leadership but also the strong customer focused culture she has fostered within her businesses. I say 'businesses' because Candice is the driving force behind three popular cafes in the Longman electorate: Annie Lane in Bongaree, Gather and Feast in Caboolture, and Ruby Tuesday in Burpengary East. These establishments have become beloved local spots where customers are greeted with Candice's warm smile and genuine hospitality. So, whether you call in for a well-made coffee or just a friendly hello, the atmosphere created within her cafes reflects Candice's commitment to outstanding service and community connection. Running a small business in today's economic climate with record business insolvencies and closures is incredibly challenging due to the rising cost of living, which has led to the unfortunate closure of many local businesses in Longman. Rent increases, higher prices, electricity costs and increased wages due to inflation have squeezed margins for many small operators, especially in hospitality. Despite these pressures, Candice has demonstrated remarkable resilience and gone against the grain by expanding her three cafes during this difficult period, a feat many others have been unable to achieve. This makes her success all the more commendable and inspiring. What makes Candice's success even more impressive is the way she runs her business with the support of her husband, Richard, and the whole family, who work behind the scenes to help grow and sustain these ventures, which is pretty common in a family business. Through their combined efforts, they have built not just cafes but community hubs that bring people together. I also want to give a shout-out to all the other nominees for the small business awards from Longman. It's quite a list. There's Beyond Dental Care, JJ's Deliveries, G'day Adventure Tours, Caboolture Workers Co-op, Encircle Community Services, Micah Projects Wellspring Moreton Bay, Belgravia Leisure, Beachmere Dental, Sesame Lane Care and Kindergarten, Buddy Brewing—good beer there—iReformer, Eckersley Print Group, Teeny Tiny Homes, Jumbo Skip Bins, Superior Engineering and the Lullaby Club. I know only too well how tough and thankless small business can be, especially when you're starting out or when times are as tough as they are now, so well done to you all. Medical Workforce 105 17:07 Mr ABDO 316915 Calwell Professionals across our allied health sector do incredible work, not only in supporting our health system and keeping it afloat but also through the vital role they play in preventive health care, helping people spend less time within that system in the first place. I've spoken before about how workers in this space are too often overlooked and underpaid, and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the critical work they do in communities like mine supporting some of our most vulnerable people. When all else fails, when someone's health, ability or circumstance changes, when self-reliance becomes increasingly out of reach, it is our disability and allied health workforce who step in. They pick up the pieces for patients and their families during some of the most vulnerable and emotional times in their lives. I'm an advocate for the dignity of work. It's what drives me every day in representing my community and in helping shape Australia and our economy. These workers not only carry that dignity with them every day but deliver it to others through the care and support they provide. That's why it's incumbent on all of us in this place not only to thank them but to support them, to stand by them, to back them and to deliver for them, just as they deliver for our communities. Nobody chooses the circumstances that place them at the receiving end of this care. When we talk about the dignity of work, we often mean the dignity that comes from employment itself. But we must also talk about dignity in work, which depends on fair conditions, proper staffing levels and fair pay. As this workforce supports people through their personal struggles, I also want to recognise the Health and Community Services Union in my home state for standing with their members in their collective struggle for dignified wages and working conditions. To those who work in mental health, disability and drug and alcohol services, to the nurses, allied health professionals, lived and living experience workers, disability support workers, administrative staff, program and support workers: thank you—thank you for showing up, for your care and for your compassion. To all who serve others in their time of need, please know this: we see you, we stand by you and we support you. The trust that helps hold our health system together rests also on the shoulders of this workforce. We owe it to them—and to every person who depends on their care—to ensure that this responsibility is met with fairness. The quality of care we deliver can only ever match the value we place on those who provide it. Dignity in care also means dignity for these carers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 295588 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 106 BILLS Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 106

Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025

Second Reading 106 17:10 Mr NG 316052 Menzies I rise today to speak in favour of the Freedom of Information Bill 2025. The Freedom of Information Act is over 40 years old—even older than me, and that is saying something! In 1982, when the Freedom of Information Act was legislated, the first computers were just being invented, there were no electronic records, and we were on the cusp of entering the first glorious years of the Hawke government. This bill creates the necessary and overdue reform to our freedom of information laws, which are a cornerstone of a transparent and accountable government. Since its election, the Albanese Labor government have demonstrated time and time again our commitment to restoring trust and integrity in government. We understand that governments must be willing to be open to public scrutiny and answerable to public accountability. The freedom of information regime is vital to the functioning of our democracy. It allows members of the public to better understand government. It provides people the opportunity to obtain personal information held by government agencies, including decision records from Centrelink and immigration and other government services, so that they can understand and, if they feel the need, appeal decisions that have profound effects on their lives—for example, whether or not they are allowed to access family tax benefits or be granted a visa to remain in Australia or be granted access to disability supports. The freedom of information regime also provides an important tool for the press to scrutinise government. However, our freedom of information laws are no longer fit for purpose. Their outdatedness risks creating an unsustainable impost on public services and public resources as well as on the budget. The sheer volume of electronic records generated by public sector agencies would have been unimaginable for the drafters of the FOI Act. Some requests for freedom of information can be large and complex. There are also increasingly vexatious or frivolous requests. This is exacerbated by the fact that the current FOI laws allow requests to be lodged anonymously, creating the risk that this could be exploited by offshore actors and through the use of Al. We now have agencies like the Department of Home Affairs holding close to one billion records in a single system. In 2023-24, the Commonwealth spent $86.2 million processing FOI requests, which was a 23 per cent increase on the year before. Public servants spent more than one million hours on FOI processing in that year alone. We cannot continue on that trajectory. That is one million hours that these public servants could have spent delivering services to people. This was one million hours not spent on assessing payments, helping veterans, helping migrants, processing visas or helping a business or a community organisation. When every request, no matter how broad or vexatious or repetitive, must be treated the same way, the system is pulled away from genuine applicants. We also know—and it is time to say this plainly—that FOI is not always being used in the public interest. It is sometimes used as a political tool to tie up agencies. It is sometimes used to harass or contact public servants in unacceptable ways. It is sometimes used anonymously, which creates a serious integrity risk in a world where hostile actors can automate requests on a large scale. The current act did not anticipate any of that. Our job is to fix it. The bill does not walk away from transparency; it restores it. It restores it by making the system workable again so that real requests can be answered in a reasonable time. It restores it by making sure public money is spent on access to information that Australians actually need, not on administration generated by automated systems or by repeat applicants. It restores it by protecting public servants, who should not have their names and personal details published in ways that expose them to abuse. The bill does four important things: it modernises the framework, it streamlines access requests, it protects the integrity of cabinet-level decision-making and it implements longstanding recommendations from the 2013 Hawke review that every government since has been told to deal with. First, in regard to modernisation, we are making the foundations of the freedom of information laws fit for purpose. This bill will update the objects of the act so that it is clear that FOI is about both accountable government and effective government. It clarifies what is and is not a document of an agency. If something on a government system is purely personal and has nothing to do with the conduct of public business, it should not be dragged into FOI. This protects staff and keeps the act focused on government work. Second, it streamlines access. This bill deals with the practical reality that agencies are being swamped. It modernises how FOI and review applications can be lodged with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. That will allow early triage and better digital processing. It ensures that employee-identifying information does not have to be published in every notice or release, except where there is a proper reason. That protects the safety and privacy of staff, which is increasingly important when requests are used to target individuals. We are also tackling abuse of process. Agencies will be able to decline requests that are vexatious, frivolous, harassing or simply an attempt to swamp the system. That power will itself be reviewable by the Information Commissioner so that accountability is preserved. The bill also ends anonymous FOI applications. An applicant will have to provide their name, and, if they are acting for somebody else, they will have to say so. This is a sensible reform. It prevents misuse, including by offshore actors, and it allows agencies to identify where one person is lodging multiple related requests to overwhelm public services. The bill deals with practical refusals and the use of public resources. We are clarifying how the existing practical refusal provisions operate and how the Information Commissioner should handle reviews of those decisions. More importantly, it introduces a discretionary 40-hour processing cap, as recommended by the Hawke review. This is a real balance point. Applicants retain the right to seek information and agencies retain the obligation to provide it. However, where a single request would take days and days of an officer's time, the agency can limit it, explain why and then get on with the other important work they do in serving the public. Forty hours is a pretty reasonable amount of time to be able to spend on a single FOI request. This is good administration. This legislation will also improve the review processes. It stops concurrent internal and Information Commissioner reviews, which only create delay and confusion. It streamlines extensions of time. It confirms that an agency still has to make decisions, even if the deadline has passed, so applicants are not left in limbo—they're not left waiting too long. It also moves timeframes from calendar days to working days, reflecting how the Public Service actually operates. These are small-sounding changes but, together, they remove friction from the system, increase productivity and make the system more efficient. We are also improving the operation of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The bill gives the Information Commissioner the power to remit matters back to agencies with directions. That means a matter can be fixed where it started, instead of sitting in a long queue. It allows matters to be resolved by agreement, which is faster and cheaper than a full written decision. It limits automatic parties in a review to the applicant and respondent, which removes unnecessary complexity while still allowing affected third parties to apply to join. All of this will allow the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to focus on real disputes and systemic issues instead of procedural clutter. Another important question is regarding fees. Schedule 6 of the FOI bill allows an application fee to be set in regulations for FOI requests, internal reviews and Information Commissioner reviews. Every other Australian jurisdiction except for the ACT already has some form of fee. The Commonwealth is the outlier here. A modest fee helps to deter frivolous or automated requests that chew up time and money. At the same time, the bill is crystal clear that requests for a person's own personal information will not attract a fee. I'll say that again because I think there has been misinformation on this point: the bill is clear that requests for a person's own personal information will not attract a fee. In 2023-24, around 72 per cent of FOI requests were for personal information, so those requests will not attract a fee. Three out of four requests will still be free. There will be a provision for fee waivers, including for financial hardship. The principle of access is preserved and the principle of responsible use of public resources is also preserved. I want to turn to cabinet documents, because some on the crossbench and in parts of the community have been raising this. When the FOI Act was first introduced, Senator Durack said, 'The general right of access must be limited for the protection of essential public interest.' That was true in 1981 and it is still true now. Cabinet confidentiality is really important to the proper functioning of government. Ministers must be able to test proposals, disagree, change their minds and finally reach a collective position. If every step of that process is exposed in real time, cabinet becomes performance not deliberation, advice becomes cautious, and collective responsibility weakens. Schedule 7 therefore clarifies the cabinet exemption so it protects what it is meant to protect and only that. It responds to the 2023 royal commission into the robodebt scheme, which identified that simply putting the word 'cabinet' on a document is not enough. This bill makes that plain. The content and the purpose of the document determine whether the exemption applies, not a label. That is a fair outcome. It protects cabinet where necessary and it prevents the misuse of the exemption. This is an important clarification of a term that has been ambiguous for a long time. Finally, this bill deals with what happens when a minister leaves office or changes portfolio. There has been uncertainty since the recent Federal Court decision. The bill sets out practical processes so outgoing ministers can facilitate access and so incoming ministers are not put in the position of deciding on sensitive material from a previous government. That respects long-standing convention and it gives applicants certainty. This bill is not about making it harder for Australians to get information; it is about making it possible for Australians to get information in a system that is being overwhelmed by claims that do not reflect the genuine needs of members of the community to have access to documents regarding personal information, that do not reflect the genuine needs of the press to properly scrutinise government and that do not reflect the genuine needs of members of the community and community organisations to better understand government decisions. As I said before, for the number of requests we receive, the amount of resources that are going into meeting these requests is not sustainable. It is increasing at a significant rate, and we want to make sure public resources are used for what they are supposed to be used for. It's also about protecting public servants, keeping up with technology and making sure that FOI in 2025 and the years to come looks like a tool of democracy and not a tool of disruption. Transparency must work in practice, not only in theory. The bill delivers that. It modernises the act, implements the Hawke review, future-proofs the system against automated abuse and keeps personal access free for the vast majority of applicants. It makes reviews faster. More importantly, it puts genuine applicants back at the centre of the FOI system. That is what good government looks like. It's transparent, accessible and effective. I commend the bill to the chamber. 17:25 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Merely a couple of days ago I was in this chamber trying to get information on an incredibly sensitive topic. I was trying to get clarification. What happened is that we didn't get that clarification. By reason of that, a whole heap of innuendo and presumption—vexed and invective—became part of it. It was a highly sensitive topic. It was whether a piece of legislation from this place went beyond the initial remit—what it intended to do. It was Priya's Bill to look after people who have had a stillbirth or traumatic circumstances where their child has died. Did it actually go to a place of involving also late-term abortions? The reason those questions are asked in the chamber is because we can't get answers. We'd never proceed to a place like here if we could actually get the answer. But we can't. What we have to deal with is the juxtaposition of people with completely different views all contacting our offices. The reason FOI is so important is that we need to be able to get to the bottom of issues on behalf of the Australian people when there's a deliberate evasiveness of governments—whether it's us or them—not providing that information. They don't provide that information, because it protects a purpose that is unbeknownst to us but obviously is there. FOIs have a whole range of nuisances, but they are essential. We've heard about issues that are vexatious, frivolous, harassing or competitive. I get all that. But sometimes the price of us having a transparent democracy is dealing with those impediments or at least going to the process of a proper Senate inquiry, so we can facilitate a better outcome than one that is foisted on us here at the moment. When governments become too powerful, they immediately start to cover their tracks. This is a sign of a government that is becoming too powerful and managing to act basically without question. If you want to see the tenor or authenticity of a government that is not scared of the truth, you'll never get a better place than question time, where, in answer to an obvious question, we get the most classic example of obfuscation, belittling and theatre but never an answer. When people see that on television and say: 'That is the approach of government to a question that has been asked and that, whether you like it or not, I had the right to watch on question time. And they never answered it.' And then you have an earnest view of a government that says, 'Look, we've also got to go into FOI laws, because we're well meaning, and we'd never do anything wrong.' Then, of course, people say: 'But I watch you every day and you don't answer questions. Why do you make it harder for us?' Journalists are the fourth estate. A democracy does not work without the fourth estate. Knowing one journalist very well—my wife—they rely on FOIs. They do so because their job is to convey to the wider community the truth and the realities of what is happening in this building. Now, once you get rid of FOIs, you shut down the capacity for the Australian people to graze on the truth. Then they have to graze on suspicions, they have to graze on innuendo and they have to graze on rumour, because they cannot get to the truth. It was Pulitzer who said: There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy. The great thing about democracies which differentiates us from socialist states and communist states—North Korea, Russia, China, Vietnam; take your pick—is that we believe in the transparency of the actions of the government. They are beholden. Our judgement on them is by us getting a free flow of information back for the assessment of their character and their efficacy, and that's on the range of all issues. What we're seeing here is a corralling: 'You'll get information for that, but you won't get it for this, because we've deemed that you shouldn't get access to that information.' That is a very dangerous thing to do. I want to take you to an area which is very close to my heart. This is so evident. There are things called capacity investment schemes. They are, apparently, secret agreements where proponents—domestic billionaires and foreign companies, such as PETROS and BP—get paid a secret amount by the government to build an intermittent power precinct, which I call 'swindle factories'. We hear that there is a return of up to 18 per cent. That's a lot of money. So they build a billion-dollar swindle factory. They get an equivalent return of about 18 per cent. That is $180 million a year, and here's the clicker: they don't have to produce an electron; it's underwritten. Ninety per cent of the returns are underwritten by the taxpayer. Now, I really want to get to the bottom of this. This is the taxpayers' money and the pensioners' pain. But you can't get it, because it's hidden. It's a secret. So you go to the budget papers, thinking that you'd have to find it there because that is an authentic demonstration of how the taxpayers' money is being spent. But when you go to budget papers it's NFP, not for publication. In the meantime, you're thinking that this sounds like a rort. It sounds like a swindle or a massive rort—people can get this massive return if they just invest the most expensive capital they can possibly get their hands on in every square inch of land that's eligible. And that is exactly what is happening. So that's happening now, and we're going to put even further restrictions on it. If the government was straightforward and transparent and had nothing to worry about, when we ask questions like, 'Can you please tell us how these capacity investment schemes work? Just give us the top 10 in returns. You can take the names out, but just give us a bit of an understanding about where the taxpayers' money's going.' But you won't get it. And there's other information. There's information that's come out today. We're going to get three hours of free power in the middle of the day. Where did this come from? Who dreamt this up? Where did the modelling for this come from? There's no trick to this, is there? Is it the case that, if you're really wealthy and you can store it in a battery in the middle of the day, you'll get if for free, but if you're really poor and you have to come home at night to cook your dinner and maybe put an air conditioner on, you are going to pay an awful lot of money? One of the things they talked about was that it will help you charge your electric car. Well, guess who owns electric cars? Wealthy people own electric cars. Poor people own second-hand internal combustion engine cars. We have a right to know where you got this information from. There is yet another thing. I was just listening to Matt Kean. When you can't get the truth, people can get away with anything. Matt Kean was on television just then. He said the majority of the global GDP is heading towards net zero. That is not the truth; that is something that starts with L and rhymes with stye—like pigsty. It's not the truth. I know that because I researched it. I know that China doesn't even have to think about it until 2030. Neither does India. The United States of America is out, and other countries aren't in. But because he comes from a position of authority and he's on television, people say, 'Well, it must be the truth.' It's the job of the fourth estate to go: 'Hang on; I don't think that is the truth. I will go and investigate it. Investigative journalism is very important. I will go and investigate that, and I will convey back to the Australian people where the truth lies.' Rather than convey where the truth lies, this has lying imitating truth. That is not what should be happening. This bill should be stopped. At the very least, since you're honourable, truthful people, you should refer it to a joint committee so that you could bring forward what are probably very valid issues that you need to deal with, such as repetition, vexatiousness, harassment, 'swamping'—I understand that. Come forward so that the whole of Australia can see that there is a bipartisan or multifaceted approach to examination of this issue that is absolutely fundamental to where a democracy goes, and then they would believe that there was more truth and veracity in what would be put forward in a bill subsequent to that report from that committee. But we have a partisan approach to a fundamental concept of democracy that is being put forward by a government which, God bless them, have massive numbers. They are now exercising those numbers so as to entrench their capacity to stay in government. They know that if they can stop you finding out the facts, then you cannot find the fault. And if you cannot fault the fault, your default position, when you vote, is, 'They must be going okay because I haven't heard anything else.' That's a step—a big step—away from how a democracy is supposed to work. The previous speaker, the member for Menzies, mentioned how it was the same as when Hawke was there. Just because it's the same, doesn't mean it's wrong. It probably means it's been working. With the capacity for the administration of these requests, and rather than the IQ going into how you just don't do them anymore, you could be looking at the things that are available to you, such as AI, and saying: 'How can we be more efficacious? How can we make these things happen quicker? If they request that, why don't we just get the information out to them?' Create a portal, with the premise of AI, and they can just get the information. If you've got nothing to fear about the truth then you should have nothing to fear about creating a mechanism that gives you the information immediately. Now we have this payment system—democracy for sale. And we've seen actual examples of this, where people are trying to deal with the intermittent power precincts, trying to get information, and having to pay hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dollars for basic information about the circumstances of what has happened to them in their community. Then they're being given email links, and getting documents which are totally redacted: 'Dear redaction, redaction, redaction, redaction, redaction, redaction, redaction, Yours sincerely, redaction.' That's like—I don't know. Kampuchea? I don't know what that is. That's a complete defrauding of the democratic process. People should be really concerned about the path this heading down. You might say it's innocuous at this point of time, but be careful, really careful, of going down this path of removing people's access to knowing things about their nation. That's exactly what happens in the end. You are removing the capacity to know about your nation and, therefore, leaving, untethered, the capacity for a government, which is very powerful in numbers, to do as it wishes—and the wishes of a government may be completely at odds with the wishes that are best for your nation. 17:40 Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR 315618 Barton I rise to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 to reform the Freedom of Information Act, which is well overdue, necessary and grounded in one simple democratic principle: the public has a right to know. Freedom of information laws sit at the heart of a functioning democracy. They create transparency, they forward accountability, and they ensure that government at every level remembers who we serve—that is, the people. I had the opportunity to hear the member for New England's speech on the amendment bill, and I want to quote something he said tonight. He said, 'When a government becomes too powerful, it covers its tracks.' Now, I'm not going to listen to advice from a member who was part of a former government that provided multiple secret ministerial portfolios to a former prime minister. For me, transparency is not an abstract principle. It is a lived value that all Australians expect that governments of the day will uphold. Before entering this house, I spent a decade working in employment and industrial relations law. In that role, I stood next to working people like nurses and electricians—people who relied on accurate information to stand up for their rights. I've seen firsthand that, when transparency fails, working people lose power, and, when systems become confusing, slow or difficult, it is everyday Australians who are left behind. FOI is no different. Access to government information empowers our communities. It builds trust. It gives people confidence that public institutions serve them, not themselves. Yet we must also be honest. The FOI framework as it stands today is not working as intended—not for government, not for public servants and certainly not for the public. When the FOI Act came into force over 40 years ago, the Public Service did not operate in the world we live in today. There was no email inbox overflow every morning, there were no digital archives holding decades of communications, and there were no thousands of pages generated every week across government offices. Back then, the volume of public sector records and the pace at which information moves now would have been unimaginable. Today, by contrast, the government receives over 34,000 FOI requests each year, and departments and agencies spend more than one million hours processing them annually—and it comes at a cost. Last financial year alone, FOI processing cost government more than $86 million, a 23 per cent increase on the year before and more than double what it cost in 2010-11. That is taxpayers' money. That is Public Service time and capability. That is not sustainable without reform. If we do not modernise this system, we'll continue to choke it, we'll continue to see delays and we'll continue to see resources diverted away from public delivery and into administrative gridlock. Worst of all, genuine requests from the public, whether it be journalists, researchers, academics or community advocates, will be pushed to the back of the queue, crowded out by unreasonable or abusive demands. We must protect FOI, but in order to protect FOI we must also protect the integrity of the system that underpins it. We know that over recent years, FOI has increasingly been used not as a tool for accountability but as a tool for harassment or disruption. Public servants who've simply turned up to do their job to serve the community have been subjected to abusive, threatening and excessive FOI requests designed not to seek truth but to intimidate or distract. Agencies have been weighed down by overly broad or malicious requests that consume enormous time and resources without delivering public value. As an employment lawyer and someone who's had the opportunity to work in operations as well—at St Vincent de Paul—I understand the balancing of WHS operational challenges and protecting workers in their duties. It is paramount that government be a role model for balancing protections for workers with accountability expectations from the community. While government must always be accountable, no system should tolerate abuse of workers, resources or processes. We are here to ensure transparency, not enable harassment. There has to be a balance. Accountability cannot come at the expense of safety or function. The reforms before us recognise this balance. They modernise the FOI system. They make it fairer, clearer and more efficient. They restore the intention of the act to provide access to information for those genuinely seeking it. Let me outline a couple of key features. Firstly, the reform modernises how requests are made and processed. We live in a digital age; our laws must meet this reality. Secondly, it ends anonymous FOI requests. Transparency cuts both ways. The public deserve transparency from government, and government deserves transparency about who is requesting sensitive information, particularly where national security may be at risk. Thirdly, it ensures decision-makers have adequate time to handle complex requests so that responses are accurate the first time instead of rushed or flawed. Fourthly, it introduces processing caps and the ability to change modest application fees for non-personal information, with waivers for financial hardship. Almost every Australian jurisdiction currently has an initial FOI application fee. This is not about shutting the door on transparency, like we hear from those across the chamber. It is about keeping the door open for genuine users by preventing the system from being overwhelmed. Fifthly, it provides agencies the ability to manage vexatious requests without removing the applicant's right to make future FOI requests. This is proportionate. This is absolutely fair. Sixthly, it clarifies legal ambiguities, especially following the full court's decision in the case of Patrick v Attorney-General, ensuring conventions around cabinet confidentiality and transitions between government are preserved. Ministerial deliberations must be protected. Cabinet confidentiality must be protected. Otherwise, collective responsibility, a core pillar of our Westminster system, will begin to collapse. These reforms do not weaken accountability. They safeguard the integrity of decision-making while guaranteeing the public's legitimate right to information. The FOI Act was created to shine a light on government, not to bury it under paper, not to threaten its workers and not to compromise its ability to deliver services. This bill brings clarity where there has been a bit of confusion. It brings structure where there has been strain. And, critically, it brings a balance that recognises both the rights of citizens and the responsibilities of government. We must never discourage scrutiny, and we must never shy away from transparency. But we must also ensure that FOI remains a system for accountability, not attrition. I know members opposite may raise concerns about restricting access or imposing barriers. I say this very clearly: a broken system serves nobody. These reforms give FOI longevity, they ensure public access remains quite meaningful and they ensure genuine requests are prioritised. And, yes, they ensure public money and public time is used responsibly, not drained by a handful of abusive or extreme demands while journalists, community members and advocates wait months or sometimes years to get an answer. Our commitment to transparency is not negotiable. Our commitment to accountable government is not negotiable. These reforms do not walk away from those commitments. They absolutely strengthen them. They ensure FOI remains a tool for democracy, not a weapon against it. They ensure the system supports fairness, not frustration, and they honour the foundational principle that government information belongs to the people, it belongs to the public, it belongs to us as Australians, and access to that information must be real and reliable. The strongest democracies are those that evolve. They recognise when systems strain, and they adjust to modern realities with integrity and purpose. This bill is not about closing doors. It's about keeping them open and functional for generations to come. This Labor Albanese government and the FOI reforms are focused on delivering for the Australian people. I commend the bill to the House. 17:50 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I start by acknowledging the member for Barton and congratulating her on her election to the House. I don't doubt for one second that the spirit in which she offered her remarks was well intentioned and based on the trust that she has in this government. The problem is that that's not actually its practice. I understand when you're a member of the government, particularly when you're new and you want to feel that your government, which you have been elected to support, is trying to do the right thing. But, as always occurs with all governments, eventually its true face is revealed, and what we're seeing more and more with time is the dark face of the Albanese government as the mask slips. The seemingly well-meaning Prime Minister, who likes to have a beer at the pub—although he actually did do that when he was claiming he wasn't doing that, but that's a whole separate issue. In the lead-up to the 2022 election, I remember seeing him explicitly saying one thing in public and doing something completely different, but we'll leave that to one side. Ever since then, what we've seen through the legislation that has been put before this parliament is the mask slipping, and we're increasingly seeing the contemptuous quiver of his lip in a 'how dare you, Australian people, question me?' as he periodically jaunts back in from trips on his Air Force jet between visiting Dan Andrews in Victoria or going overseas. He comes back from the National People's Congress and thinks, 'That would be a really good model to impose on the Parliament of Australia, where people just stand and applaud like trained eunuchs and don't ask or dare raise questions.' And this legislation around freedom of information comfortably fits within that. Anyone who's submitted an FOI under this government or, more importantly, under other Labor governments in the country will know how much, on the surface of it, they talk about integrity and they spin the idea that they're in favour of transparency, but, in practice, they weaponise and use it at every point to try and undermine access to information. I'll give you a classic example of this. I FOI'd the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing many, many months ago asking for information about an MRI machine at Sandringham Hospital—Sandringham Hospital, of course, being in the federal electorate of Goldstein. I remember, in 2017, when we were last in government, an MRI licence was secured for the federal electorate of Goldstein. Many people said to me: 'Why didn't you get one for Sandringham Hospital? Why did you get it for Cabrini hospital in Brighton?' The answer was because Sandringham Hospital doesn't have an MRI machine. It's not much use getting an MRI licence for a hospital that doesn't have an MRI machine you can use it on. So it was with fascination that, during the lead-up to the last federal election, the former member for Goldstein was boasting to the community about how she got this magnificent MRI licence for Sandringham Hospital. I thought, 'That's really odd because, as far as I'm aware, the website alfredhealth.org.au still says it doesn't have an MRI machine. Of course, I then dutifully went to foi@health.gov.au with one of these mischievous FOIs—'How dare people submit?' I asked the basic questions: Could I have the advice that was given to the department at the time? Could you give me information reflecting what their decision-making and their pricing structure were on whether this should be passed? And what did the research and FOI documents actually show? They showed the department saying, 'Actually it's quite easy to calculate the cost of bringing forward the MRI licence for Sandringham Hospital because there's no MRI machine.' So what they engaged in was a cruel health hoax that deliberately deceived the people of Goldstein in order to prop up the former member in the hope that they would then go on and get re-elected. It was to help their own electoral fortunes and chances. So does FOI have a place? Yes, it has a role to expose the deception and the dishonesty at the heart of this government and, of course, of any government that seeks to abuse power. The minister was specifically warned. Even worse than that is that the FOI went in many months ago and we waited and waited and waited for an answer. Do you know when they released the answer? Do you know when they finally gave out the documents? They finally gave out the documents on the Friday evening after the bureaucrats were forced to admit, before Senate estimates, everything I've just said. They weaponised and they abused freedom of information to hide information until they could hide it no longer. That is what Minister Butler does. That is what the Prime Minister does. They weaponise laws to shut down access to information for the people of Australia. We've now got this piece of legislation, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, and we know that the Attorney-General is trying to suffocate and silence what is left of the democracy in our country in terms of access to information. We know that she is trying to deceive the public, and they are using the most fantastical and farcical arguments to get there. The argument that is now being put forward by the Prime Minister is that we have to shut down the pathways of freedom to information for ordinary Australians because there might be things to do with national security and the cabinet. I hate to break it to you, but, if you've ever read the FOI Act, you will know that it already excludes all of the information around our national security. They say that the last resort of a scoundrel is to appeal to national security or patriotism. Well, this government is clearly full of those types of characters. They have simply deceived the public in the hope that they can ram this through and impose their truth tax to shut down and silence information and to cap the volume of information that Australians can get. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. They haven't consulted. They haven't engaged. There are so many transparency organisations and anticorruption organisations. There's the opposition and the crossbench, who are increasingly seeing the dark face of this government. They're seeing the mask slip when the Prime Minister gets up in question time—when he occasionally answers questions rather than, with a quiver of his lip, shouting abuse back in response. They're starting to see what happens when you have a government that's let the intoxication of power go to its head. It's worse than, let's say, a few beers once you've frozen the excise. What we know is they're shutting down transparency and democratic accountability. I gave an example of what's going on at the local hospital in the federal electorate of Goldstein. They're imposing new fees and processing caps to try and silence and limit access to journalists so they won't be able to find out information. They're trying to minimise the capacity for people to get information, like whistleblowers and vulnerable applicants, because that's what we really need right now. We need more pathways to silence whistleblowers. Why do you think that might be? Do think it might be because, at the moment, we have whistleblowers who are standing up and calling out the CFMEU and their administration established by Minister Rishworth and calling out that corruption is actually getting worse under the current government's proposal? Their solution is to shut down whistleblowers, to silence dissent and to challenge anybody who stands up and calls out corruption at the heart of this government. They do not want these voices to be heard, because they know it's not just getting worse but likely to continue to get worse under this regime. They want to expand secrecy around cabinet advice because apparently there's this explosion of cabinet advice. It's just all around. You can go and pick it up. There are pieces of paper all around. It's all over the place. So they have to try and somehow minimise it. Cabinet advice isn't publicly available. The idea that they need to somehow constrain this further is farcical. They are using it to try and expand it so that now ministers can walk through and say, 'It went through the cabinet room. Now it's cabinet advice, so you can't access it,' to try to continue to create silence and limit the amount of available information. They're putting caps on the volume of information you're able to secure and the processing times. What a surprise. Do you think it's possible, Deputy Speaker Boyce, they might turn around and simply say, 'I think it's going to take a while for us to process this information in between my coffee break, going to the bathroom, lunch.'? It will get longer and longer and then all of a sudden they will say, 'We can't give that information; it's too long to process.' Get real. The intention of this legislation is clear. The attempt of this government to silence and shut down public scrutiny is real. When you have a truth tax, when you have silencing and the limiting of information, and you see the example of their conduct in other arenas such as the CFMEU administration, where the minister still takes advice from somebody who self declares they are so tainted they cannot sit on the national executive of the Labor Party yet they still hold that person as an advisor on the national construction industry forum—and, funnily enough, that minister is still blocking a public inquiry through the Senate into CFMEU corruption into the regime she has established—you start to see the cartel kickback circle of life. This is the problem. This legislation, in theory, is designed to do what the government claim, which is simply to administratively tidy up the law. In practice, it is a backdoor attack on our democracy and it needs to be called out because it will reward delay and dysfunction at every step of the way. It lacks public support. I have yet to find a single person outside this Albanese government who supports it. Nobody is coming up to me in the street and saying, 'I really support how the government is shutting down freedom of information. I think it is a wonderful thing.' Not a single person has said that; though people have said the reverse. People have said, 'I don't think it's a good idea.' Journalists, members of the opposition, members of the crossbench, anybody who has actually thought about what this government are doing in their insidious agenda have said it. It goes directly against the proposition this government came to office in, saying they would have integrity and be fulsome in providing information to the public. We all know that is complete fantasy now. It was a proposition put at the time but nobody actually believes that. I don't think they even believe it themselves, but I would not want to verbal them; they should just be ashamed by their conduct. More importantly, what the legislation actually does is damage public trust, because around this country we have so many Australians that already have deep distrust in institutions. The one surefire way to guarantee that is to shut them down and limit access and accountability, to make it even harder for agencies to be held accountable not just from the public and journalists but from ministers themselves, certainly from parliamentary processes. If the minister and members opposite were so enthused and so enthralled by standing up for public scrutiny and accountability, the first thing they could do is start by saying that a lot of these rules simply should not apply to those people elected to public office to hold the government specifically to account, and certainly to journalists whose job it is to shine bright lights into very dark crevices. But let's face it, nobody wants to know what is going on in the dark crevices of this government. We have increasing bureaucracy and legal complexity deliberately designed to obfuscate and make it more complicated to be able to find information, and for what purpose apart from the secrecy this government seeks to impose? There is a better way. We can conserve the existing laws. There is no national security threat despite the pontificating of the Prime Minister, who has come back from overseas and too often is trying to find justifications to shut down accountability around this parliament, the government and the operations of the Commonwealth of Australia. We can have a better way. We can have laws that work to enable access to information, that give people access to the information they need to be able to hold this government to account. We don't need to indulge the fantasies of the Albanese government and those who wilfully come into this chamber with the delusion of thinking they are doing the right thing, when in fact they are entrenching the corrupt government system they claim they are seeking to oppose. We have choices as a nation about the type of country we want to be, and we want to be one focused on making sure there is transparency, accountability and decision-making, because it is important not just for the ministers but for the bureaucrats themselves that they understand through the systems of government there is accountability for their decision-making. Nobody should be embarrassed by the process of making decisions. It is about making sure they are properly informed, that they are properly respected and that people have input into the processes of government. It is the right of every Australian to ask challenging and difficult questions to their government. I hate to break this to the members of the government: the people have a government; it is not the other way around. Citizens have a government; it is not the other way around. We are not your serfs. Our job is not to comply. Your job is not to control the citizens of this country. It comes down to a simple proposition: we face choices. The choice is simple. I fundamentally believe that we should have legislation that improves this country and the governance framework that we have. That means we build a better future for children and our grandchildren and we do not hand to them a state of silence, as the Albanese government would like to achieve. We stand for a nation that is built on structures and the protection of accountability, and that means making sure we stop these types of bad laws. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 11788 We no longer have a quorum, so the Federation Chamber is suspended until a quorum is present. Sitting suspended from 18:05 to 18:11 Mr TIM WILSON IMW I wasn't going to use my last 28 seconds, but since I'm still here I can't resist the temptation, because that has just demonstrated exactly what happens. This Labor government has no interest in accountability. At every single point they have tried to shutdown pathways, including in this chamber. I still remember at question time today, when I got up to ask a question about the corruption at the heart of the CFMEU, the only thing the Prime Minister had to say was to shut down question time. 18:11 Ms CLUTTERHAM 316101 Sturt Freedom of Information is an essential part of any democracy. The public must have a clearly defined legal right to access information held by the government, and the process to access that information must be transparent and easy to use. Scrutiny, review, measurement, testing, debating of government actions and decisions—there are many words that can be used, but these things must be protected. Openness must be practised, and public participation in that practice must be easily facilitated. Individual members of the public must also be able to easily access information about themselves that is held by the government, in order to have knowledge of what that information is but also to be able to change it, add to it or correct it as required. First and foremost, however, empowering the public to hold the government to account is fundamental. This openness and accessibility must, however, be balanced with a number of factors, including confidentiality and sensitivity of certain information, and balanced against the allocation of available resources to properly deal with requests for information made by the public. Vital to a healthy and well-functioning democracy, a fundamental aspect of the rule of law, crucial to ensuring government transparency and accountability, and essential to enabling the public to participate in and scrutinise government decision-making, this balance is part of a well-functioning freedom of information system. The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 would amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to improve the operation of the freedom of information framework through reducing system inefficiencies, providing clarity of the law and addressing abuse of processes that impact on people's right to access information. Prior to being elected to federal parliament, I was a practising lawyer for 20 years. I held a number of different roles around the world, and in Australia, in private practice and in-house for companies and government business enterprises. In one of my more recent in-house roles before parliament, the responsibility of addressing third-party freedom of information requests received from members of the public fell to me. So I can attest firsthand to just how complicated it can be to properly and fairly respond to a freedom of information request, particularly with respect to section 47C and its coverage of material falling under the umbrella of deliberative processes and also with respect to section 11B and its, frankly, currently inadequate description of the public interest disclosure test. Clarity in this respect is long overdue. In another recent role prior to parliament, I was a partner in a law firm where we represented certain government clients. Clarity over what information qualifies for the cabinet exemption is long overdue. I can also attest firsthand to the time that it takes to address freedom of information requests, which, often, when I received them, amounted to nothing more than an exercise in exploration, usually off the back of an ill-informed sound bite floating around the internet. Sometimes it took weeks to respond to these sorts of requests because, when you get one, you want to address it properly. It's not just a case of responding; it's a case of searching through reams and reams of electronic data in order to locate documentation that might possibly be responsive to an overly broad request which is often lacking in any temporal limitation. The rate and volume of electronic records generated today by public sector agencies would have been almost unimaginable when the Freedom of Information Act was first introduced some 40 years ago. For legal practitioners and members of the Public Service who work tirelessly to advise on freedom of information legislation and respond to requests in the spirit of transparency and integrity, the amendments proposed by this bill will simplify matters considerably. The public will have greater clarity over the process by which they can make freedom of information requests and how they are dealt with and greater clarity over what is exempt from disclosure and what is not and, most importantly, why that is so. Importantly, through the implementation of a small fee, which is already replicated across most states and territories in this country, the public will have it reinforced that freedom of information is critical but also a two-way street. Governments should be held accountable and the public should have access to information and the ability to easily request that information, but government resources—being time and taxpayer money—should not be tied up addressing vexatious and speculative freedom of information requests that have no basis other than in rumour, misinformation or innuendo. In terms of a critical feature of this bill, it will operate to clarify the public interest test as it relates to matter covered under the deliberative process. Section 47C of the Freedom of Information Act operates to provide that a document is conditionally exempt—not exempt but conditionally exempt—if its disclosure under the act would disclose deliberative matter, which is matter in the nature of or relating to opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation which has taken place in the course of or for the purposes of the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency or a minister or government of the Commonwealth. What ultimately happens to a document that section 47C may have relevance to is a three-stage process. Firstly, the decision-maker must be satisfied that the information in question does actually involve deliberative matter. Then, the decision-maker must ascertain whether the information was obtained and the purpose for which it was prepared, and how it has been documented or recorded—was there a deliberative process involving the exercise of judgement and the weighing-up and evaluation of competing arguments and considerations? Those are the first two stages. Then, finally, the decision-maker must also be satisfied that the information relates to a deliberative function and that that function was or was intended to be exercised by an agency, a minister or the Commonwealth government. It's not a free pass; the information must pass all three stages in order to determine that it is deliberative matter. Then, and only then, a conditional exemption from disclosure applies. That conditional exemption is then further examined. It's either crystallised or removed subject to the public interest test, as set out in section 11B of the act. This section applies for the purposes of working out whether access to a conditionally exempt document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. Currently, section 11B lists the factors that favour access or, in other words, that favour the lifting of the conditional exemption. These include whether access to the document would do any of the following: promote the object of the act; inform debate on a matter of public importance; promote effective oversight of public expenditure; or allow a person to access his or her own personal information. There are no proposed changes to this Equally and very importantly, there are no proposed changes to section 11B(4), which sets out factors that are not to be taken into consideration in determining whether access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. The first matter—and this is important as we have heard suggestions to the contrary today—that is not to be taken into account is whether access to the document could result in embarrassment to the Commonwealth government or cause a loss of confidence in the Commonwealth government. These things do not matter for the purposes of the act. They are irrelevant in determining whether access to the document is in the public interest. This regime exists in the act and it is not changing. Also irrelevant is whether access to the document could result in any person misinterpreting or misunderstanding the document or whether the author of the document was, or still is, of high seniority in the agency to which the request for access to the document was made. The final factor that is irrelevant to the public interest consideration is whether access to the document could result in confusion or unnecessary debate. Article 11B(4) is critical, and I encourage everyone to read it. It is remaining and is not proposed to be amended by this bill. The act currently explains the factors in favour of disclosure and the factors that are irrelevant. What it does not do currently is set out the factors against disclosure. All this bill proposes to do is clarify those actions. They include whether access would prejudice the frank or timely provision of advice to or by an agency or minister and whether it would prejudice the orderly and effective conduct of a government decision-making process. The chamber will note that the list of those factors is neither extensive nor arbitrary and that they would apply in very limited circumstances. We have heard a lot today about the cabinet exemption, which is also being amended to clarify its operation. Firstly, it will be amended to clarify that merely labelling a document as a cabinet document is not enough to make it a cabinet document. The amendments proposed by the bill in this respect ensure that information central to the cabinet process is appropriately protected and ensure that the principle of collective ministerial responsibility is not undermined, noting that this principle is crucial to ensuring that full and frank debate can take place within cabinet. The act currently does not contain scope to apply the public interest test to the cabinet exemption, and the bill does not propose to introduce this. The public interest is implicit in the purpose of the exemption itself. We have heard today that it will be enough to mark a document 'cabinet' to qualify for the exemption. This is not correct. There still remains a test for whether a cabinet document is exempt, and that test is the substantive purpose test. In order to qualify for the exemption, the substantive purpose of the document must be for cabinet processes. Simply labelling it as a cabinet submission on the face of the document will not make it qualify, and any suggestion to the contrary is incorrect. The amendments proposed by the bill also propose to improve transparency by removing the ability to make anonymous requests. Together with the implementation of the reasonable fee, which, importantly, does not relate to requests that individual Australians make in relation to their own personal information, the requirement for an applicant to faithfully identify themselves is again designed to reduce the number of vexatious and ill-motivated requests that the Australian Public Service and other relevant third parties have to spend countless hours and taxpayer money dealing with. It's also quite obviously very important for there to be transparency about who is asking for information. Risks to national security may arise if requesters can make requests for information anonymously. And national security risks can only be identified and managed with information. These changes do not inhibit the provision of information to those who have genuine reasons to access information. This is not changing. But the increase in freedom of information processing costs to agencies is increasing to unsustainable levels. In the 2023-24 financial year, agencies spent $86.24 million and one million hours addressing 34,000 freedom of information requests, some of which were maliciously used to attempt to disrupt business or to make abusive, excessive or threatening contact with public servants. There are not inexhaustible government resources available to process large and complex requests, or to have processed requests that are abusive to people and abuse government processes. The fee for access, which I again stress does not apply to personal information, is not, as has been described, a 'truth tax'. It's not that. It's designed to reduce the number of vexatious requests that are made each year, and that detract from those with credible, genuine requests from having those requests addressed promptly. The bill provides important clarity to how and when information can be accessed. It addresses the oft-used abuses of process that impact on people's right to access information, and demonstrates the importance of a highly functioning and transparent system of information access balanced with an efficient and effective government and balanced with the public interest. I commend the bill to the House. 18:26 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The coalition opposes this bill, but I do want to make some remarks about the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Sturt. It was a thoughtful contribution. I respect her as a lawyer and I absolutely admire some of the points that she put across based on her experience in that law firm. When she mentioned the vexatious and speculative freedom of information request based on rumour, misinformation and innuendo, she was 100 per cent right. The member for Sturt was absolutely spot on, so thank you for those very wise words. Having said all that, you'd wonder why I would then say that we are opposing the bill, but we are, and I will tell you why in the contribution that I will make. I want to hark on the facts that the member for Sturt put forward in relation to my three-and-one-third years in cabinet as the Deputy Prime Minister and as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. At the time, I oversaw a $110 billion—110 thousand million dollars—rollout for projects, programs and infrastructure across this nation. They were heady times. We got a lot done. Yet, most of the FOI request that came to my office and to the departments in that time were from the Labor Party. They were. They were generally from the chairs of committees. Some of them were from joint select committees. I had the member for Grayndler as the infrastructure shadow. I had the member for Ballarat as a shadow for some time. Rest assured, you knew when stakeholder groups were being primed and prompted by those two formidable members of parliament; it just jumped out at you from the pages of the FOIs you received. I had the department spend an inordinate amount of time going through the many FOI requests that were conspired and inspired by the Australian Labor Party. Not only did it cause a lot of angst and wasted time; it also chewed up considerable energy in my office. You should ask what you would rather have your public servants do. Should they be shuffling papers, doing FOI responses, or should they be getting on with developing programs, policies and project ideas that may build an even better nation? I know what I would prefer. That's not to say that some of the FOI requests, as the member for Sturt quite articulately and eloquently described, aren't vexatious, because they are. Deputy Speaker Wilkie, you would know this. I know you're very much about giving whistleblowers all the protections that they need, and I very much respect the role that you have played in that in your 15 years of service to this parliament and to this nation. I do. I genuinely mean that. But this isn't just about whistleblowers. This is also about, as the member for Sturt said, getting through some of those voluminous in-trays of FOI requests which, quite frankly, in many cases, are a try-on. I appreciate we have two new members here in the chamber, the members for Bass and Moore. One day I hope you're ministers. I genuinely do—a long way off! Hopefully, we're back in government in 2028. But you're both young. You've both got time. When you are ministers, you will understand what I mean. You do get a lot of requests, and a lot of those requests are just try-ons, usually from the other side of politics. I don't mind mentioning this: I thought the Prime Minister gave such a good answer in question time the other day that I texted him. He said that in some instances—and I don't think I'm speaking out of school, but, if I am, I'm sure he will rap me on the knuckles!—it is becoming unworkable because it is bogging down government and bogging down the processes of government. I didn't have the crossbench, but the Prime Minister does, and the crossbench brings another level of requests—and this is not a reflection on you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie. I'm talking about the teals. Please know that. The crossbench adds another level of requests. In my next life, I will come back as a teal. I want to be a pontificator, and I want to be pious and perfect every time on every issue. I do want to be that person. At the moment, I just get complaints brought against me from everybody on Facebook and Twitter—my goodness, X! The point I'm making is that transparency is important, but we also need to try and work through what are just vexatious, what are just based on fallacies and fantasies from the internet and what are just political try-ons and then what are genuine attempts to uncover something that needs to be exposed, that absolutely needs to be out in the public domain. I'm not so sure that placing a charge on this is right, as the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 would have us do and would have us believe. This is where I will differ from the member for Sturt: it is a tax on truth. The difficulty that I have with that particular part of this legislation is that the people who put these vexatious and 'speculative'—to use the member for Sturt's word—FOIs in have deep pockets and are sometimes bankrolled by organisations that would waste the government's time. People who I know are genuine—some of those people I know Deputy Speaker Wilkie is passionate about—who just want something to be exposed because they can see a wrong and want it put right, don't have deep pockets. They don't have, quite frankly, the time and the money that this legislation would put into law. There is a lot to unpack in this legislation. But the difficulty I have with it—and I am a former journalist and a former newspaper editor—is that there is a public right to know, and this is clamping down on that. I've also been the second in charge, and sometimes acted as the person in charge, of national security, and I know the sorts of things that come across that table at times. This is where you and I, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, might disagree. You haven't been at that table. Sometimes the public doesn't have a right to know until the 30 years have passed, when everything becomes obvious and is made free. You sometimes do have information that is a potential threat to this nation, and you don't want to have runs on banks and panic and people, quite frankly, setting their hair on fire about something that won't happen but potentially could happen. I have always believed that the government of the day, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have always had the nation's best interest at heart; I do. Again, we'll agree to disagree, but that's why I do believe that they should have the ability to send the nation to war and to send troops into action. They shouldn't have to come back to the parliament, because imagine that sort of ability being held up by the Greens political party, or even the teals, because the teals, quite frankly, are often Independents masquerading as Greens or, the other way around—take your pick—Greens masquerading as Independents. These are important discussions that we need to have as a parliament and as a nation. The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill proposes to require FOI requests to be made with applicant identification, banning anonymous or pseudonymous requests. There are two ways of looking at that. Sometimes people who are making those requests can't be in the public domain for all manner of reasons, and I get that. This is drawing a long bow, but it is a point. I notice that, increasingly, even in the football lists in the local park competitions that exist around my electorate, you'll get a lot of players who can't be identified. They just appear as 'private player' on these lists, with an asterisk after their name, even if they've kicked five goals or been best on field—that's in the men's and the women's footy competitions—because they don't want their former intimate partners or somebody else knowing who they are, where they live, where they're playing or what they're doing. This is part and parcel of modern society, and modern society has changed a lot from the days when I was a newspaper editor, mainly through the 1990s. The bill also introduces a discretionary 40-hour cap on processing FOI requests, to limit agency workload. Good luck with that. I know that it burdens public servants when they get these requests. What I would like to see, as I said before, is public servants sharing the workload. They have to do all of the workload. They do enough already. I've said on a number of occasions in this place that I admire the work that public servants do. I do. I always want that to be known. They do a great job. They're often criticised. You'll often hear about the bloated bureaucracy and all the rest, but public servants do a mighty job for this nation and don't always get the credit they deserve. Sometimes they really have to be able to do the work that the government requests of them, not just follow through on FOIs. The bill allows the Australian Information Commissioner to remit review applications to agencies for reconsideration. As I said, there a lot of things in this bill that would improve efficiency. The charging of a fee disturbs me. It worries me; it really does. I think the bill ignores key recommendations from the 2020 Senate inquiry. I often wonder why House of Representatives members sometimes scratch their head and wonder and worry about what the Senate gets up to. The Senate inquiries play a really important part in improving legislation and in getting the answers to issues put to them. In relation to ignoring the key recommendations, it's particularly on resourcing timeframes and cultural issues within the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. It does impose new barriers, such as fees and the ban on anonymous requests. It reduces access and discourages legitimate applicants. You can look at that either way. I know the Attorney-General and others have put a ruler over this. They've really looked at this particular legislation, trying to jump ahead and see the unintended consequences, which aren't always obvious when governments put bills in. I know that's why we have an amendment process. That's why we have Senate inquiries. That's why sometimes we have to bring bills back and change them. Sometimes the unintended consequences are worse than what the minister thinks as they're putting bills before the parliament. Even the bureaucrats just don't often realise everything that could evolve as a result of a bill going before the parliament and getting royal assent by the Governor-General. It expands the grounds for refusing information, especially through new broad exemptions on cabinet and deliberative processes. I have been on about this, about the cabinet. There has to be a certain amount of secrecy with cabinet. Pardon this, Independent; it might be an idea to block your ears for a minute. Independents will never get that. They just won't, because they'll never be around the cabinet table. They'll always make a big song and dance when they go out in the public and go out in the media about the fact that they're running the show. Well, they're not. The cabinet does do the administrative hard yards for and on behalf of the government, for and on behalf of the parliament and for and on behalf of the people. That's the Westminster system. I applaud and admire that. It's served us well since 1901, and may it long continue. We can't have Independents running the show. I mean, they're a rabble—the teals, particularly. I'm glad you can't interject on me, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, but I mean that with all good intentions, having sat around those cabinet tables. But this bill needs a lot of work, and we don't agree with it. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Riverina for his contribution and for his personal comment about me early in his speech. 18:42 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I promise not to make any of the same comments about your contribution to this place. I rise to make my contribution to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 would amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to improve the operation of the freedom of information framework through reducing system inefficiencies, providing clarity of the law and addressing abuse of the processes that impact on people's right to access information. The bill responds to recommendations from a number of previous reviews and inquiries that have made recommendations for reform of the freedom of information system. This includes the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 and recommendations from the 2013 Hawke inquiry. It also makes amendments that go beyond recommendations of these reviews. The proposed amendments would amend the cabinet exemption to clarify its operation. This ensures that it operates to appropriately protect information central to the cabinet process and ensure that the principle of collective ministerial responsibility is not undermined. It would also amend the public interest test as it relates to the deliberative processes exemption to clarify public interest factors which weigh against disclosure of deliberative material. These factors will include prejudicing the frank or timely provision of advice to or by an agency or minister, or prejudicing the orderly and effective conduct of a government decision-making process. The bill provides for how the act applies to documents of a minister where a minister ceases to hold office or moves to a new portfolio, responding to a 2024 judicial decision which introduced some uncertainty in this area. The bill will also clarify issues around the definition of what is a document of a minister and provide that agencies should not be required to conduct searches for official documents of a minister hosted on agency systems. The bill modernises aspects of the act and clarifies the law in certain areas to ensure efficient management of freedom of information applications. Furthermore, efficient management of reviews and complaints by agencies and Office of the Australian Information Commissioner addresses duplicative and inefficient processes. The bill strengthens the ability of government agencies to deal with vexatious and abusive requests and protects employees from harm, including by removing the ability of applicants to make FOI requests anonymously. Additionally, it limits the circumstances in which agencies are required to release employee-identifying information captured in the freedom of information requests. The bill clarifies that information on agency or ministerial systems that contain personal or non-work related matters of staff are not captured in the definition of a document of an agency. The bill extends the timeframe for agency decisions to reflect working days and consultation processes to ensure high-quality original decision-making. It also introduces a 40-hour processing time limit for FOIs. It creates a power in the act to enable to introduction of application fees for freedom of information requests, internal agency reviews and IC reviews. The bill was designed in close consultation with government agencies and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. This was following considerations of recommendations from the independent statutory review of the FOI Act and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into the operation of the Commonwealth freedom of information laws in 2023. This bill builds upon existing regulation powers in the FOI Act. The Freedom of Information Act was established 40 years ago, before the advent of common use of electronic documents, communications and records in the workplace. The rate and volume of electronic records generated today by public sector agencies would have been unimaginable when the Freedom of Information Act was first introduced. The freedom of information processing cost to agencies has been steadily increasing over time. In 2023-24, FOI processing was conservatively estimated to cost agencies $86.24 million—a 23 per cent increase on the year prior and more than double the $36.32 million in 2010-11. The government received over 34,000 requests for freedom of information in the 2023-24 year and spent over one million hours dealing with freedom of information requests in the same year. Freedom of information requests are also being used in malicious ways to disrupt government operations and make contact with public servants in abusive, threatening and excessive ways. There are not inexhaustible government resources available to process large and complex requests or to process requests that are abusive to people and abusive to government processes. Providing access to information to those who genuinely are seeking it is inhibited by inefficient systems and processes and a tolerance of abuse in the system. There is also a need to clarify the law following the decision of Patrick v Attorney-General [2024] FCFCA 126, which raises complex issues in respect of requests to ministers and the established convention that deliberative documents of previous governments are not provided to an incoming government. The reforms are also intended to provide transparency about who is seeking access to information held by the Australian government. This will help agencies understand where there might be involvement of foreign governments or foreign entities in a request and to appropriately manage any potential national security risks. Freedom of information is a vital feature of democracy, promoting accountability and transparency of government decision-making. The government will improve the freedom of information system so genuine freedom of information requests are prioritised. I commend the bill to the House. 18:49 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong It's 43 years since the initial freedom of information legislation was enacted in this place. It was at that time a significant achievement—a strengthening of our democratic process. Sadly, that achievement is undermined by the legislation which is now before the House. The FOI Act enshrines the right to access information. It protects individuals' rights by providing them with access to information about them held by the government. It protects the public interest by providing transparency of government expenditure around government activity and government decision-making. Over time, we have seen a number of governments wanting to prioritise efficiency over transparency but that's a concern for public integrity and it is a concern for the democratic process. Those concerns were noted by now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese when he said in 2009 that we needed to reform our freedom of information laws so they could not be flouted by government. Indeed, prior to the 2022 election, the ALP said that Labor intended to make government more open, more accountable. They said they intended to strengthen freedom of information laws, and to foster compliance with them throughout the government. Sadly, the bill now before the House reflects a government which is actively seeking to limit the public's access to information about its administration. The government was returned this year with a massive majority yet it lacks clarity of purpose, integrity of action, and a real commitment to transparency and openness. Labor's proposed freedom of information changes are a direct reversal of the reforms Labor itself introduced in 2009. One wonders what John Faulkner would think of them. It is true that the freedom of information system is experienced by most who engage with it as being slow and frustrating. Departments are under resourced, and they often use unreasonable and unnecessarily obstructionist tactics, which result in frustrating delays and backlogs. As Crikey described in its recent submission to the Senate inquiry on the bill, those tactics create a feeling of 'administrative torture so unfathomable as to be undemocratic'. The government has claimed it has been forced to address a flood of frivolous vexatious and AI-generated requests. Its response to these is to restrict FOI access to all Australians by prohibiting anonymous applications. The rationale for these changes was the purported involvement of foreign actors, but the government has failed to provide evidence supporting those claims. The government claimed that foreign adversaries are using FOI to obtain information in a way that could be contrary to our national interest. But FOIs reveal information that should be public, and they cannot force the government to release anything that would be inappropriate for the public to know. So in the absence of any evidence that foreign actors are actually submitting vexatious requests, we have to suspect this claim is speculative. The prohibition of anonymous applications could have a chilling impact on vulnerable individuals, potentially whistleblowers, and others who may fear retaliation for very legitimate reasons. The bill also reintroduces fees to lodge a request, excluding those for personal information. FOI application fees were abolished in 2010 when then Australian Information Commissioner John McMillan argued this was a part of making public requests for documents, and that FOI requests should be more routine and accepted part of the daily business of government agencies. In 2013 the Hawk review explicitly recommended application fees for FOI requests not be restored. The Attorney-General has failed to provide any reason why this should happen. Again, these fees could block access to FOIs and to transparent government by the most vulnerable. They are an unjustified nuisance tax by what has become an arrogant administration. The bill also creates a means of refusal of requests for information, a practical reason to justify refusals if the work involved in processing the request is felt likely to substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations, or, in the case of a minister, would interfere with the performance of the minister's function. These are somewhat nebulous and undefined reasons for refusal and they are clearly going to be open to abuse. The robodebt royal commission gave rise to grave concerns regarding abuse of cabinet confidentiality exemptions. Robodebt was an unlawful scheme. It caused immeasurable injury. Its authors knew that that was the case, but they deliberately, dishonestly and immorally acted to conceal that knowledge. The robodebt royal commission found that documents related to robodebt were deliberately marked 'cabinet-in-confidence' to ensure that they were not released. In her report around the matter, the royal commissioner noted that the deception at the heart of robodebt would have been discovered much sooner had those cabinet documents been available to the public and to the media through FOIs. She recommended that the relevant section of the FOI Act be repealed and that the description of a document as a cabinet document should no longer be in and of itself justification for maintaining the confidentiality of that document. She suggested that confidentiality should only be maintained over cabinet documents, or parts of cabinet documents, where it can be reasonably justified for an identifiable public interest reason. But, instead, the Attorney-General proposes the very opposite. Instead of repealing the confidentiality exemption, this bill expands that exemption. No longer does a document have to be for the 'dominant' purpose of going to cabinet; it is enough if it is for a 'substantial' purpose. So documents which might be prepared to brief ministers on issues which might come up in cabinet would be included, and so would consultants' reports and other attachments to cabinet submissions. This, again, is directly in opposition to John Faulkner's establishment of the dominant purpose test in 2009. This administration is demonstrating regression on the standards set by previous Labor governments. But by far the most egregious part of the bill—the attempt to draw the curtains, turn off the lights and hide behind the couch—is the insertion of a public interest test. This would allow ministers to block the release of documents if they determine that such is not in the public interest. One basis for the test is suggested to be that such disclosure would or could be reasonably expected to prejudice the frank or timely discussion of matters or exchange of opinions between participants in deliberative processes of government. This clause reflects the claim that FOI can impede the ability of senior public servants to provide frank and fearless advice to ministers. Revisiting the past yet again, I invoke the 2013 Hawke review, which agreed with the former Commonwealth Ombudsman John Wood that officials should be happy to publicly defend any advice they give to ministers and that, if they are not happy to do so, they should perhaps rethink that advice. Insertion of a public interest test at the same time that this government has expanded the capacity for national interest approvals via the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act presents the Australian public with the extraordinary possibility that this government could approve massive new fossil fuel projects, highly polluting critical minerals projects or rare earth mines and then deny to the public any information or any rationale relating to the basis of those approvals. It is confounding that this government proposes to be so evasive and so circuitous. If the government's decisions are lawful, sound, based on the best possible advice and in the public interest and, indeed, the national interest, why be so coy? Get out there and share it with the people. I put it to the government that concerns regarding frank, fearless and timely advice from public servants are not best addressed by increasing secrecy, that it should proactively publish information as requested and needed by our constituents, that the principle of proactive disclosure underpins a confident and effective democracy and that a core democratic principle is accountability by the government to the people that it serves. On those grounds, I cannot support this legislation. 18:59 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise in strong support of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. It's a bill that brings one of our most important democratic laws into the modern age. At its heart freedom of information, FOI, is about trust. Governments act on behalf of the people and the people have a right to see how those decisions are made. It's how citizens hold power to account—whether it's pension decision, a visa application or a policy made in Canberra. When people see how government works, they are more likely to trust it. When they can't, suspicion fills the gap. The purpose of FOI is simple: to put information and therefore power back into the hands of the public. But the FOI system we rely on today is not fit for purpose. It was built for a world of filing cabinets and fax machines, not for cloud services and automated data. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 was passed over 40 years ago. Back then a big data problem meant someone had lost their floppy disk. The scale of modern government could not have been imagined. The Department of Home Affairs alone now holds nearly a billion records. Across government, agencies processed over 43,000 requests in 2023-25, which is the highest number on record. The cost of handling them was almost $98 million—a 14 per cent increase on the previous year, which itself had risen 23 per cent the year before. Public servants spent more than one million hours on FOI work. That's one million hours not spent improving schools, hospitals or community safety yet, despite all that effort, delays keep growing. Applicants wait months, sometimes years, for information that should be routine. The system is creaking. It is expensive, outdated and increasingly exploited by those who use FOI not to shed light but to throw shade. Freedom of information is meant to strengthen democracy, not to be weaponised against it. But that is what has begun to happen. We now see automated bots generating hundreds of requests in a single day, coordinated campaigns designed to tie up staff and, regrettably, abusive behaviour directed at public servants. Some of those requests come from offshore and others arrive under false names. In 2024 the eSafety Commissioner received almost 600 automated FOI requests in a short period, diverting an entire team for months. That's not transparency; that is sabotage of the system intended to serve the public. Agencies have also reported requests that have exposed staff to harassment. Personal email addresses and phone numbers have been published online. Transparency does not mean putting public servants in the firing line. It means accountability with civility and openness with safety. This bill modernises the FOI framework from top to bottom. It balances three objectives: to protect the rights of Australians to access government information, to protect the people who administer that right and to make the system efficient and secure in the digital age. The amendments implement recommendations of the 2013 Hawke review, respond to the 2023 Senate inquiry and address issues exposed by the 2024 full court decision in Attorney-General v Patrick. They also reflect advice from the National Intelligence Community and the Australian Public Service Commission about the growing risks of anonymous and automated requests. First, the bill gives agencies stronger tools to deal with vexatious, repetitive and abusive requests. It empowers agencies to refuse requests made in bad faith or that are designed to harass staff while preserving the applicant's right to seek review through the Information Commissioner. It removes the ability to lodge anonymous or pseudonymous FOI claims. Applicants must identify themselves and, if acting for someone else, declare that fact. This closes a major security gap. Anonymous requests have been used by foreign actors to test government systems and gather data that can be pieced together for intelligence purposes. It also stops those who hide behind fake names from issuing threats or abusing to public servants. The bill introduces new protections for employee-identifying information, ensuring that personal details like names and direct emails are not automatically released unless disclosure is genuinely in the public interest. Senior executive officers remain subject to scrutiny, but junior staff, who carry out decisions rather than make them, will no longer have their personal details spread online. Transparency must never come at the cost of personal safety. Second, the bill brings FOI into the digital era. It modernises how requests, reviews and complaints are handled, allowing for electronic forms, online submission and clear communication with applicants. It gives the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, the OAIC, flexibility to manage matters digitally rather than through outdated paper processes. It allows agencies to continue accessing requests even when statutory timelines have elapsed, ending the stop-start paralysis that currently occurs when a deadline is missed. It moves from calendar days to working days, aligning the act with modern administrative practice. These are practical, commonsense updates, the kind any efficient organisation would make. Third, the bill restores balance by introducing a 40-hour processing time cap on individual requests. This means one request cannot consume hundreds of staff hours while others wait indefinitely. Applicants whose requests exceed that cap can narrow the scope, discuss priorities or appeal. The cap is not a barrier. It is a safeguard to ensure the system serves everyone, not just the loudest voice. The bill also allows modest application fees for non-personal information, with waivers for financial hardship. Access to one's own records, such as a Medicare or a Centrelink file, remains free. Charging a small fee for large or commercial requests helps manage costs and discourages speculative or automated bulk lodgements. Fourth, this bill resolves several grey areas that have fuelled confusion and litigation. It clarifies what constitutes a cabinet document, reinforcing the confidentiality that underpins collective ministerial responsibility. It refines the deliberative process exemption, providing clearer guidance on what internal advice should remain confidential to protect the integrity of decision-making. It ensures that documents belonging to a former minister can be appropriately handled when portfolios change, addressing the uncertainty identified in the Patrick case. It confirms that material stored on government systems that relates purely to a public servant's private affairs—a family email, for instance—is not a document of an agency. These clarifications save time, reduce disputes and bring certainty to both applicants and agencies. The bill also strengthens the role of the Information Commissioner to ensure faster and more efficient reviews. It allows the commissioner to remit matters back to agencies with directions for reconsideration where that would achieve a quicker, better outcome. It permits reviews to be resolved by agreement between parties without the need for formal written decisions every time. It limits automatic party status in reviews to the applicant and the respondent, while allowing others to apply if genuinely affected. These measures let the OAIC focus on resolution, not red tape. The objects clause of the FOI Act is being rewritten for the first time in four decades. It will now expressly recognise that, while openness is fundamental, it must operate, as far as possible, consistently with the protection of private interests and the effective operation of government. The balance has always existed in practice. Now it will be clear in law. These reforms have been carefully tested against Australia's international human rights obligations. They promote the right to privacy under article 17 of the ICCPR by limiting the unnecessary release of employee information. They support the right to freedom of expression under article 19 by keeping genuine public interest information accessible while protecting security and privacy. The application fee framework includes mandatory hardship waivers, ensuring no Australian is priced out of transparency. The opposition will say this bill limits access. It doesn't. It fixes a system that is collapsing under its own weight. A broken system is not transparency; it is bureaucracy. Under the previous government, delays grew, trust fell and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner was left underresourced. They had nine years to act and did nothing. When secrecy suited them, they kept the blinds drawn. We saw it with robodebt, a scheme cloaked in denial and exposed only by a royal commission. This government is taking the opposite approach. We are fixing the system so that sunlight reaches where it should, efficiently, safely and fairly. Transparency is not an abstract concept; it matters in the communities we represent. It matters to local journalists in Joondalup, who lodge an FOI to see how a grant is delivered. It matters to a community group in Kingsley seeking information about housing programs. It matters to small business owners in Currambine needing clarity on licensing or tender processes. It matters to advocates in Edgewater and Beldon helping families with disability or aged-care services. And it matters to pensioners in Woodvale waiting for a Centrelink file. A modern FOI serves all of them, people who simply want answers from the government. This bill complements the broader integrity framework of this government, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, public interest disclosure reforms and the APS Integrity Taskforce. It reflects a belief that integrity and efficiency go hand-in-hand. The amendments reduce duplication between agencies in OAIC so public resources are spent on outcomes, not process. The result will be faster, fewer disputes and better service for applicants. The reforms will deliver modest net savings through administrative efficiencies, but their real value is institutional, restoring confidence in a framework that has lost both speed and credibility. They will ensure FOI officers can do their job without fear of harassment, and reaffirm that transparency and respect for staff can coexist. Some governments hide from scrutiny because they fear it. This government welcomes it because we learn from it. We know sunlight makes systems stronger. We want citizens to ask questions and for answers to come quickly, clearly and safely. The amendments in this bill do not weaken scrutiny; they make scrutiny work. They give Australians confidence that their right to know is respected and that the system administrating that right is robust and humane. Labor has always strengthened democratic institutions. We introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 1982, the 2010 reform act and the independent Information Commissioner. We established the National Archives and the public interest disclosure scheme. This bill continues in that tradition, ensuring that Australians can trust both the government that serves them and the systems that hold it accountable. In a world of misinformation and deepfakes, the antidote is credible information from credible institutions. A functional FOI system helps deliver that. It shows the state does not fear transparency and that truth does not wait for a whistleblower or a leak. It shows the machinery of government can adapt to the technology of the times, and it shows we can be both open and secure, transparent and accountable without being naive about the risk. This bill is about trust, balance and modernisation. It brings a 40-year-old law in line with contemporary practice. It protects the Public Service, empowers genuine applicants and restores the integrity of the FOI framework. It ensures freedom of information remains exactly that—freedom with purpose, not freedom with boundaries. Openness without order breeds chaos, and bureaucracy without openness breeds cynicism. The amendments in this bill strike the right balance between the two. They make the system fairer, faster and safer, and will help rebuild confidence in government decision-making, the confidence that comes when Australians know they can see for themselves. This is reform about good government, not politics. It will outlast parliament as all good legislation should. I commend the bill to the House. 19:13 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. Frankly, I thought the member for Moore was looking me deep in the eye here and trying to convince me of the greatness of this piece of legislation. I am sorry to tell him this is not a bill I would wish to try to defend. While aspirations he speaks to are honourable, this bill simply does not deliver them. The right to access government information is an indispensable feature of our democracy. It is key check and balance on the executive, on the Public Service, and it is a protection against bad government. It is living proof of the democ in democracy—meaning the people. In Australia, the government should not sit above the people but with them. So I was rather amused at that explanation of the changing of the objectives of this act because it simply is not true. Our freedom-of-information system is underpinned by the belief that every citizen, every member of our community, has the right to access information about the decisions that governments make. To trade this away is to trade away a great Australian democratic pillar as important as compulsory voting or the independent Electoral Commission. We don't have to look far to see what can happen when governments, even those elected democratically, begin to wind back and dismantle democratic institutions. Of course, there are genuine limitations to the right to access government documents, limitations that are clearly laid out in the existing FOI Act, limitations that many say go too far. The Australian Press Council points out: Broadly defined exemptions for Cabinet documents, deliberative processes, national security, and "commercial-in-confidence" have historically been applied far beyond their original intent. The reality is that most FOI documents contain significant redaction, sometimes comprising the majority of the document, and that's if the document is released at all. In recent years, for the first time ever, the number of FOI requests refused was higher than the number of requests fully granted. In the past 10 years, the refusal rate has doubled. FOI expert Maria O'Sullivan from Deakin University notes that, while there is real need for reform of the act, this bill 'severely threatens government transparency' and 'is not the way to do it'. Unfortunately, there is more bad than good in this bill. Using some much-needed and important reforms as cover, this government seeks to implement sweeping restrictions and carve-outs under the guise of 'modernisation'. It shifts the entire purpose of the FOI system from 'pro-disclosure' to 'maybe-disclosure'. Passed unamended, this bill would represent a significant retrogression of transparency and accountability in Australia's federal system of government. It would be a direct repudiation of the Australian voters' wishes. They didn't vote for secrecy; they voted for transparency. This bill has no friends outside the walls of government. It should be abandoned, frankly. It is desperate and, honestly, it was dateless until it popped its way onto the Notice Paper and weaselled its way into the Federation Chamber today. I will now explain what the bill does and why I am so concerned about it. The government has said that its intention is: … to modernise the Freedom of Information framework, reduce system inefficiencies, address abuses of process, and clarify the operation of certain provisions and exemptions within the FOI Act. This bill makes around 30 amendments. Several are uncontroversial and would simply streamline certain processes for the benefit of both the government and the public. I have no argument with some of these positive changes, including: clarifying that personal information of public servants is not FOI-able other than in certain circumstances; preventing concurrent agency and Information Commissioner reviews of FOI refusals; more clearly defining that timeframes apply to working days only; expanding the powers of the Information Commissioner to delegate decisions while ensuring that important decisions continue to be made by the commissioner or senior officers; and clarifying that, when a minister ceases to hold that ministerial office, the relevant agency can handle future FOI request relating to the minister's time in office. I welcome these changes and recognise that the FOI system, like all systems, needs to remain fit for purpose. When I'm assessing legislation, I look for the good, but I ask key questions. The first is: what is the problem we are trying to solve here and what is the change we are trying to make? Secondly, I ask whether the proposed legislative response is an appropriate response to that challenge. I ask: will it actually fix the problem? Thirdly, I ask whether the proposed legislation is good governance. Is it ethical? Is it fair? Will it have unintended consequences for some groups of people? Unfortunately, I find that, despite some positive measures, key parts of this bill fails on all three of those questions. This bill will not deliver on its goal and will instead make the FOI system more secretive and harder to access and will shift more government decision-making out of the public line of sight. Rather than addressing abuses of process, it could in fact lead to more abuses of process—not by people making requests for information, but by government agencies and departments. First, the bill changes the purposes of the entire FOI Act. It shifts the FOI system from one that is pro-disclosure to one that balances disclosure against the interests of the government, departments and ministers. This is highly concerning, and has been widely criticised by organisations such as the Human Rights Law Centre. The Law Council of Australia says the 'the alteration to the objects of the FOI Act alters the presumptive right to information, replacing that with a discretion that promotes economic factors into decision-making'. The Centre for Public Integrity says this bill 'takes the Australian freedom of information regime in a more secret direction'. Second is the proposal to prohibit anonymous requests, which are vital for investigative journalists or whistleblowers seeking to reveal government malfeasance. The government says that it must ban anonymous requests to stop the deluge of request being made by bots, foreign actors and trolls. Well, if this really were the case, I would be more inclined to agree. But here's the rub: the government hasn't provided evidence of persistent spam or malicious requests. All it can provide is a handful of cherry picked examples. Now, if the government insists on such a drastic and draconian reform to the FOI system, surely it must provide the evidence base—and it simply hasn't. I have no doubt that there are vexations applicants, and, indeed, there will be serial spammers. New provisions in the bill to deal with vexatious and frivolous requests appear sufficient to deal with troublemakers in a more limited and restrained way. It's why I can't support an unjustified move to remove every Australian's right to make an anonymous request, and the chilling effect this would have on investigative public interest journalism in this country—something that so many of us deeply rely on. Similarly, provisions to create application fees appear to be nothing more than a new barrier to access. Fee for access is contrary to the right to access information, and that it's likely to cost more to administer than it will ever raise in revenue. The government points to state and territory frameworks that charge fees, but this simply isn't sufficient reason. A fee system will simply create new barriers for people with little disposable income to access the FOI system and make it more likely that they will decide against accessing or pursuing information. Provisions for financial hardship and exemptions for personal information make a bad measure slightly less bad, but the fact remains that this government has made no compelling argument on why fees are actually necessary in the first place. But perhaps the most egregious changes are those to cabinet document exemptions. Already it's incredibly difficult to access any document that has gone anywhere near the cabinet room. Government often fights tooth and nail in the courts to fight against release of these documents, but now they want to go further, making it virtually impossible to know how and why cabinet ministers are making the most important decisions affecting our country. Under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition that referred specifically 'to deliberation and decision-making'. This is very concerning. Similarly, to be exempt under this bill a document need only have the substantive purpose of informing a minister in relation to an issue to be considered by cabinet. So this means, remarkably, that the document need not actually go the cabinet, but simply inform a minister in relation to an issue that cabinet will consider. Frankly, it's hard to imagine anything this couldn't include. This will make cabinet documents even more secretive, directly contravening the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. Just today, the Centre for Public Integrity said that it is misleading to suggest that this bill simply clarifies the existing cabinet exemptions. In contrast, it's the accepted legal view of the Law Council of Australia and others that these amendments will substantially broaden the cabinet exemption in highly concerning ways. And for a government that said 'never again' to robodebt, this certainly doesn't inspire confidence. I'm not convinced that this bill can be reformed, so deep and broad are the issues that I, along with many of my parliamentary colleagues, the community and civil society, have raised. However, I always seek to come to this place not only with problems but with solutions, so I sought to look at this bill and make some good-faith suggestions to improve it. Several sections simply can't be fixed, and I've suggested they be repealed in their entirety. I hope members of the coalition, who seem to be saying they're not in favour of this bill either, will support these amendments. I moved amendments to repeal the section that creates application fees for FOI requests, as I previously stated. The government has failed to make the case for why these amendments are necessary, and it has not sufficiently justified that application fees won't deter many people from making an application in the first place. I've also circulated amendments to repeal parts 1 and 2 of schedule 7. Part 1 would enable decision-makers to refuse a request when it would be clearly exempt under the relevant section of the act. There would be no need to check whether it's actually an exempt document. Simply believing it is exempt will be enough to refuse a request. I know this name is triggering for the government, but I'm going to say it anyway: as former senator Rex Patrick said, these provisions are ripe for misuse, and I agree. While you can appeal, most people will simply give up. Part 2 expands cabinet exemptions. I seek to repeal this section entirely, and, as I said before, this contradicts a key recommendation of the robodebt royal commission and will reinforce the culture of cabinet secrecy that allowed robodebt to persist for so long. While these exemptions remain, there is no chance that I can support this bill. The government has said this bill would be debated in future sitting weeks. It wasn't on the original program and only appeared last night. Up until then, it was desperate and dateless. But it appeared as an item of business today here in the Federation Chamber. These changes are so significant that this debate should be happening in the House of Representatives where all eyes are on it. In summary, I will not be supporting this bill, and I implore the government to withdraw it. I call on all good and fair-minded members of the government to ask whether this is really a bill they can support and whether this is a bill their constituents would support. Is this a bill you can defend? Is this a bill you can be proud of? When we return to our communities this weekend, what will we say when asked how we voted on a proposal to make government more secretive and less accountable to the Australian people? 19:27 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Freedom of information is one of the key pillars of a democracy. It should ensure that people have access to the information they need to understand the decisions and actions of their government. Australia has a proud history as a world leader in freedom of information, having introduced a comprehensive federal FOI scheme in 1982, as part of the new administrative law reforms, and then undertaken a major overhaul of the scheme in 2010, under the leadership of Senator John Faulkner, to promote a greater culture of disclosure. Unfortunately, the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 does not continue this leadership. This bill reduces government transparency and takes our public services in a more secretive direction. Both of these outcomes would undermine our democracy. Here we are, with the bill having been relegated to the Federation Chamber by a government who clearly wants to ram these changes through without adequate time for scrutiny and consideration and without the level of debate they deserve. Certainly, Australia's FOI system needs an overhaul. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with that. Indeed, in December 2023, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee described the system as broken and unfit for purpose. In July this year, the Centre for Public Integrity released analysis of the operation of the FOI system. It revealed a system that is underresourced, riddled with delays and concerning indications of the abuse of exemptions. And the Australia Institute has found that only 21 per cent of FOI requests in financial year 2023 were granted in full compared to 81 per cent in 2006. Where the average request took 13 hours to determine in 2006-7, it took 51 hours in 2023-24. In other words, the government employs four public servants to do what only took one public servant under the Howard government. Clearly, the system needs fixing, but the government's bill takes the system in the wrong direction. Under the guise of responding to alleged abuse of the system by technology, the government is attempting to fundamentally shift the FOI culture away from disclosure, undermining many of the important reforms introduced in 2010. The government has framed this bill as a crackdown on 'abusive and frivolous' FOIs, but where is the evidence of this abuse by technology? Requests for the government's evidence for these proposed freedom of information request restrictions have repeatedly gone unanswered. During Senate estimates, the Attorney-General's Department was unable to produce any material evidence of malicious actors or automated requests, and in response to an order for the production of documents in the Senate, requesting evidence of claims that vexatious requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 are being generated by artificial intelligence or other non-human actors, the Attorney-General provided two US media reports and a list of talking points. This is hardly conclusive evidence. Among the bill's most concerning features are these: the expansion of the 'cabinet document' exemption; the expansion of the 'deliberative processes' exemption, through the addition of a list of 'factors against giving access'; the reintroduction of application fees for FOI requests; and the removal of the ability for an FOI applicant to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym. First, I want to turn to the expansion of the absolute exemption for cabinet confidentiality. This is an existing exemption that we know governments rely on to resist applications. Indeed, the government relied on cabinet confidentiality to refuse to deliver to the Senate the documents that provide evidence of the vexatious and AI-generated applications that it claims it is responding to in the bill. Recently, I had my own FOI request for the final report from the review of public sector board appointments processes denied on the basis of cabinet confidentiality. The bill will broaden that exemption. It proposes that a document will be exempt if 'a substantial purpose for its preparation was submission for consideration by the cabinet.' This will effectively broaden the amount of material able to be denied. The government is expanding this exemption, despite the royal commission into robodebt finding that cabinet secrecy enabled the abuse of power to continue. Specifically, the commission found that, while the minister failed to meet his responsibility to properly inform cabinet, it was senior public servants who provided advice to cabinet that did not contain a reference to the concerns regarding income averaging and the need for legislative change. In relation to the cabinet exemption, Commissioner the Hon. Catherine Holmes AC did not merely recommend tinkering with the exemption; she recommended its complete repeal: … the Government should end the blanket approach to confidentiality of Cabinet documents. To give effect to this, section 34 of the FOI Act should be repealed. The wide range of class and conditional exemptions in the FOI Act is sufficient to protect the public interest in relation to Cabinet documents. She continued: The mere fact that a document is a Cabinet document should not, by itself, be regarded as justifying maintenance of its secrecy. But what we have here, under the cover of the robodebt royal commission, is the government extending the cabinet document exemption and extending it to briefing documents, summaries or any reference to the contents of a document to which an exemption applies—a massive expansion of this exemption. Next, the bill expands the conditional exemption for documents that would reveal the deliberative processes of government. It does this by adding a new list of 'factors against giving access' in addition to the current 'factors favouring access' and 'irrelevant factors'. This list of factors against giving access to a document in the public interest includes whether 'giving access to the document would or could reasonably be expected to have' any of the following effects, including prejudicing the 'orderly and effective conduct of a government decision-making process.' In the words of former Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger, this 'could be used to refuse access to almost any document'. In expanding the deliberative process exemption, the government is relying on the 2015 Shergold review and the 2019 Thodey review, which including anecdotes from public servants that their advice is chilled by the possibility of disclosure under the FOI regime and recommended the widening of the deliberative process exemption. However, the chilling effect is far from conclusive. Andrew Podger, the former commissioner for the Public Service, has said: … other factors than FOI are contributing to failures to provide frank and fearless advice. One clearly accepted by the royal commission is the process for appointing (and terminating) departmental secretaries and the role and appointment process of the APS Commissioner. He went on to say: The FOI Act may be contributing … but the evidence is far from clear. More likely is pressure from ministers and ministerial advisers exaggerating the political dangers, and a public service overly responsive to the government and failing to meet their obligations to serve the Parliament and the Australian public. The Auditor-General, Caralee McLiesh, also recently highlighted the costs associated with lack of transparency in the public sector, stating: A lack of transparency means it is harder for people to understand government activity, obtain information to make decisions, and participate more fully in public life. It weakens accountability in a system that lacks other accountability mechanisms … Such accountability mechanisms include market competition. A proactive approach to publishing much more information would reduce a lot of the administrative burden of FOI requests. Additionally, former commissioner Podger has recommended that firm limits on political involvement would ensure a more appropriate system of rewards and penalties for senior public servants. It is not hard to imagine that this would allow a greater scope for the provision of frank and fearless advice. Next, this bill reintroduces application fields that were abolished in 2010 as part of the opening up of government and removes the ability to make anonymous requests. The government argues that these changes are needed to deal with the volume of requests—in particular, vexatious or AI generated requests—but, again, the evidence is minimal. If the government is asking the parliament to restrict democratic rights, at the very least it needs to produce evidence that would justify this. There is also no evidence that the government has considered alternative ways of addressing these matters that won't dissuade legitimate FOI applicants, particularly those from poorer or more vulnerable applicants, including potential future whistleblowers. The government is worried about the chilling effect of FOI on government decision-makers, but shows no concern for the chilling effect of these amendments on legitimate applicants. As an example of the legislative process, the bill represents an affront to good lawmaking. There has been no proper consultation on such an important piece of legislation. The government itself admits that it is relying on previous reviews—in particular, the statutory FOI Act review conducted by Allan Hawke back in 2013, over a decade ago. The idea that we can modernise Australia's FOI system by relying on recommendations from a 2013 review is hard to believe, but, worse, the government has cherrypicked the recommendations from that review. The primary recommendation of the 2013 review that it is now relying on to push through amendments was to undertake a comprehensive review of the FOI system. The government is also silent on the recommendations of both the 2015 Shergold review and 2019 Thodey review into the Public Service that further reviews be conducted into FOI system. And what about the other recommendations in those reviews about strengthening the independence and culture of the Public Service, including, for instance, the Thodey review recommendations to strengthen the processes of appointment and removal of departmental secretaries? They have conveniently failed to mention that the Hawke review did not recommend expanding the deliberative processes exemption and expressly rejected the claim that FOI would chill the delivery of what is a legal obligation on public servants to give frank and fearless advice. Australia's FOI system is a pillar of our democracy. It certainly needs repair, but this bill is not fit for purpose and I cannot, in all good faith, support it. The government should withdraw this bill and set up an independent comprehensive review of the system that modernises it in a way that works for, and not against, our democracy. 19:40 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I rise also to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. In describing this bill and what Labor is doing, I think I'd paraphrase a Pink Floyd song called 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond'. My paraphrasing would be: Labor is saying that we'll bask in the shadows of secrecy and concealment, riding on a clandestine dream. With this bill, the Albanese government is trying to dodge scrutiny, and the bill will normalise the use of fees for freedom of information, reducing transparency and accountability. Only last week, we saw a perfect example of the government's love of secrecy. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, under political and public pressure, finally released his incoming government brief. This brief was heavily redacted. In some sections, page after page was completely blank. It was real Watergate-era stuff. Now, energy is a critical issue for Australia, and the Australian public deserves to know the truth about Labor's energy transition. They see the outcomes in higher energy bills, but they should also be told the truth about Labor's transition, how it is going, and what advice the minister has received about the cost—the cost of energy being such a critical part of Australia's future prosperity. Instead, we get a briefing paper with massive information gaps. And this bill will make things worse. Under Labor, there's been a surge in FOI refusals. Non-disclosure agreements are used in consultations, the Senate orders for production of documents are flouted, and the Prime Minister cut opposition staffing, making it harder to hold the government to account. These changes have been rightly described as a 'truth tax'. Firstly, there's a ban on anonymous requests. This bill prohibits anonymous FOI applications, requiring all applicants to declare their identity. This eliminates the ability for whistleblowers—who may be in fear for various reasons—or vulnerable individuals to request documents without revealing themselves. There are also mandatory application fees. This bill introduces a fee for lodging an FOI request, except for those seeking their own personal information, or waivers in cases of financial hardship. Critics, of which I am one, argue that this will deter both journalists and ordinary Australians from accessing information. It seems like we're entering a period of 'cash for transparency'. There are also expanded agency powers to refuse requests. Agencies can gain broader powers to reject requests deemed vexatious, abusive or frivolous, including those considered an abuse of process. These powers may allow government departments to refuse more requests on subjective grounds. I'll just go back to that: reject requests deemed vexatious, abusive—and I don't really have a problem with those two words, but 'frivolous'? What's the meaning of frivolous? The meaning of frivolous is to not have any sensible, serious purpose or value. Who decides what has serious purpose or value? There will be a 40-hour processing cap, so a discretionary limit is placed on the time agencies must spend processing a request, allowing them to stop work once the cap is reached, even if disclosure is in the public interest. There's broader cabinet document exemptions. The bill changes the exemption for cabinet documents from those created or submitted for the 'dominant purpose' of going to cabinet to those created for 'substantial purpose'. This widens the scope for withholding documents and may lead to even more claims of cabinet confidentiality. In the bill, there'll also be a stricter deliberative document test. The amendments clarify and potentially narrow access to documents that relate to deliberative processes. What does that mean? Well, it makes it easier to withhold records of internal discussions and advice. This bill doesn't free up information; it just locks it up tighter. In its submission to the 2023 inquiry into the operation of Commonwealth freedom of information laws conducted by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the Law Council of Australia expressed a strong view that the transparency afforded to the FOI scheme through the FOI Act is critical to the effective operation of the administrative law system and, more broadly, to the integrity of Australia's democratic institutions. What did the Law Council say about the bill? While welcoming efforts to streamline FOI processes and minimise misuse of these processes, the Law Council was of the view: A number of the proposals in the Bill extend beyond efficiency gain and weigh against the central objectives of the FOI Act… We suggest the Bill includes several amendments which may have the effect of reducing transparency around Government decision-making and hindering scrutiny of matters in the public interest, contrary to the obligations under the FOI Act to 'facilitate and promote access to information promptly and at the lowest cost'… On balance. the Law Council recommends the Bill not be passed in its current form. The Law Council is opposed to those areas of the Bill that have the tendency to undermine the core principles of FOI, implement barriers to the public accessing information, and enlarge the scope of exemptions. The Law Council aren't the only ones who have problems with this. The Centre for Public Integrity weighed in on the merits of the bill: Australia's freedom of information (FOI) laws are meant to guarantee transparency, accountability, and public trust in government. Yet the Centre for Public Integrity warns that the proposed Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 risks taking Australia backwards. The Bill weakens the FOI Act's pro-disclosure foundations by expanding Cabinet and deliberative process exemptions, introducing fees, and removing anonymous applications. These changes would make it harder for journalists, parliamentarians, and citizens to scrutinise government decisions, and could silence the voices of vulnerable or marginalised applicants. I think this government is not really interested in scrutiny. I think that got worse through its first term and its conduct during the second term highlights that, with the reduction of staff and allocations to opposition. Opposition and the crossbench are all interested in holding the government to account in the interests of the people they represent in this parliament, and they need a fair application of staff to be able to do that. For the Prime Minister and the government to come in and withdraw that staff—that hints to something very dangerous in the culture of the Albanese government. It's saying, 'We don't want scrutiny.' It's saying, 'We don't want an effective opposition to be able to hold us to account.' I can't remember, over the course of my life when I've had an interest in politics, another government behaving like this in relation to the fair allocation and resourcing of opposition. I'll give you another example about the avoidance of debate. Today, there was to be a matter of public importance debate. These things are important because they give members of the opposition, the coalition or the crossbench, the ability to raise matters of public importance—matters that are important to the people they, and we, represent. I think it's great opportunity. It's sort of 10 minutes, 10 minutes and then five each. It's a great opportunity, as I did last week, to be able to bring up the plight of some of the hardworking taxpayers in my electorate, and what they go through, and why I think the government sometimes wastes the tax that comes from their hard work. The government then get to rebut and explain why they're doing what they're doing. I think that's healthy. It's a good way for parliament to be able to debate issues, not so much in question time or in what we're doing now, which is debating legislation. But it's a bit of back and forth. I think the MPI is a good thing. Today, the government decided to suspend standing orders and, effectively, cancel the MPI. In the MPI, all of us in the coalition were going to talk about the government's attitude and actions towards regional Australia. I think that would have been a really good debate. I think we were going to talk about energy, taxation and agriculture. But none of that got talked about, because the government, in what I might say was a very arrogant way, stood up and said, 'We are suspending standing orders and cancelling the MPI.' Is that the way a government that is welcoming scrutiny and is prepared to defend its position behaves? I don't think so. Many Australians are concerned about these changes. Trust in government has diminished. I came into this parliament in 2022, as did the member for Curtin. The member for Monash came in the last election, in 2025. I think we all came into this place because we wanted to represent our people and are prepared to be authentic in the way we do that. If the government wants to be authentic—the member for Monash and I hope to be in government one day, so we'll have to stand by what we've said today, but I'm prepared to do that—and if people want to be authentic in this place, they've got to open themselves up to scrutiny. A good government is not afraid of scrutiny. This bill reduces transparency and creates more places to hide information. We need more transparency, not less. There are experts out there, who we agree with, who suggest this bill will erode the foundations of freedom of information, and that is a backwards step for Australia. I'll just finish—as some people do when debating politics—with the words of an episode from Yes, Minister. A good government opens itself up to transparency and open government. In the words of Yes, Minister, 'This seems to be the closed season for open government.' 19:52 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Freedom of information, or FOI, is a cornerstone of our democracy. It's how we hold government to account. But the FOI system has room for improvement. There are arguments to reduce disclosure of information. It creates a lot of work for the public service. Anecdotally, it's full of vexatious and voluminous requests. Public servants are increasingly reluctant to write things down for fear of having their documents FOI'd. This bill addresses these problems by reducing disclosure, expanding cabinet confidentiality, limiting anonymous requests, adding new grounds to reject applications and introducing application fees. But there are also reasons to increase disclosure. Requests can take far too long to be answered. The proportion of FOI requests granted in full has dropped from 59 per cent in 2012 to just 25 per cent in 2024. There have been findings that the system is driving a culture of secrecy, a lack of ministerial engagement and inconsistent exemptions. Journalists and legal advocates report administrative torture, with excessive redactions and delays that compromise public interest reporting. These really crucial problems, requiring greater transparency, are not addressed in this bill. That's why every major review that has touched on the FOI system has called for a comprehensive, independent review of the whole FOI Act. That's what we need before we make any significant changes. As we watch democratic institutions crumble in the United States, now is the time to safeguard our institutions of transparency and accountability, not undermine them. I want to run through why the FOI system is important, the current problems with the system, why this bill is not the answer and the arguments for an independent review. The FOI Act was introduced in 1982 with a clear purpose: to open up government, to shift the default from secrecy to transparency and to ensure that decisions made in the name of the public are visible to the public. It has generally worked. Over the years, FOI requests have revealed waste, mismanagement and corruption. They have informed journalism, empowered whistleblowers and strengthened public debate. Perhaps the most powerful recent example is the robodebt scandal. It was FOI requests that helped uncover the internal advice ignored by ministers. It was FOI that revealed the legal doubts raised by public servants. It was FOI that exposed the machinery of a program that caused immense harm to vulnerable Australians. Robodebt is one of the worst misuses of government power in decades and, without the FOI system, the details of robodebt may never have come to light. This is the power of FOI. It ensures that the public can find out what the government is doing. It exposes corruption and waste. It allows the public to participate in government decision-making and exercise some power as citizens. It's about ensuring that governments act in the public interest and are held to account when they don't. But the FOI system is broken, and this is widely acknowledged. Given its purpose is transparency and accountability, some of the most worrying issues are about delays and secrecy. Twenty-five per cent of first-instance FOI requests take more than a month, and 10 per cent take more than three months. And, if you don't like that first-instance decision about what's disclosed, the time it takes to have such a decision appealed has blown out to more than 15 months. In many instances, this could render the information out of date and irrelevant by the time it's obtained. The royal commission into the robodebt scandal found that an FOI system with greater transparency would have uncovered problems much earlier and allowed for quicker resolution. As for secrecy, as well as the halving of full disclosures over the last 12 years, refusals have nearly doubled, from 12 per cent to 23 per cent. This has become significantly worse under this government. In 2022-2023, for the first time on record, more FOI requests were refused than granted in full, defying the FOIA Act's presumption in favour of disclosure. And, when appealed, nearly half the decisions not to disclose are overturned. It's true that, as well as these flaws in the timeliness and fullness of disclosure, the FOI system causes efficiency headaches for the Public Service. No doubt there are vexatious and frivolous requests, although I have only heard anecdotal evidence of this. The 580 requests received by the eSafety team from a single entity must have been painful, but I have seen no data about what proportion of FOI requests are vexatious. The minister has said that three-quarters of requests are from individual seeking information about themselves, which presumably are less likely to be vexatious. Given that public interest journalists would make up a significant proportion of the remaining quarter, the vexatious proportion must be well under a quarter. The question is: what's an appropriate price to pay for transparency and accountability? We have the equivalent of 500 full-time public servants filling FOI requests. Is that too many in a public service with 213,000 people in it? That's 0.2 per cent focused on public accountability. I recognise that vexatious applicants may now be able to use AI to generate many and slightly varied requests. This is a problem that needs to be considered along with the many other ways AI will be used in both helpful and harmful ways. A second headache for the Public Service is the way the system might inhibit frank and fearless advice from the Public Service. The Shergold review made this clear. Public servants are increasingly reluctant to write things down. They fear that their internal deliberations will be exposed, misinterpreted and politicised. That fear undermines good governance. It weakens the quality of advice and it erodes trust within the Public Service. This bill proposes to deal with these problems by: introducing an application fee for FOI requests; expanding cabinet confidentiality so that a document doesn't have to be produced if it was created for the 'substantial' purpose of being presented to cabinet, which is looser than the previous 'dominant' purpose test; amending the public interest test to introduce factors that weigh against disclosure, including if it may prejudice the frank or timely discussion of matters or exchange of opinions; introducing a 40-hour processing cap on FOI requests; introducing a pathway to reject vexatious or frivolous requests; preventing applicants from being anonymous; and other amendments to clarify and streamline the FOI process. The government argues that many of these amendments are in line with recommendations made by a series of reviews over the past 12 years. The Federation Chamber transcript was published up to 20:00. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.