I move:

That further statements on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women be permitted in the Federation Chamber.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It is my pleasure to introduce the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024 (Bill) to the chamber.

The bill adds an area of land to schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976(Land Rights Act), enabling the grant of land to an Aboriginal Land Trust and finalisation of the Wakaya Alyawarre (Repeat) Land Claim.

The land comprises approximately 484,000 hectares near Canteen Creek community, in the Barkly region of the Northern Territory approximately 275km south east of Tennant Creek.

The scheduling and proposed grant of Aboriginal land is supported by Traditional Owners and all relevant stakeholders, consistent with the terms of the Canteen Creek Area Indigenous Land Use Agreement executed by the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory Government under the Native Title Act 1993. The Indigenous Land Use Agreement resolves native title rights and interests over all land within the boundary of Canteen Creek Township..

The bill recognises the rights of First Nations people to own and control their traditional lands and demonstrates government's commitment to finalising land claims in the Northern Territory.

The bill recognises the enduring connection of the people of the Wakaya and Alyawarre language groups with the land, which is associated with emu and many other dreamings. Traditional owners have been waiting for many years for resolution of this land claim. The area, along with other land, was previously subject to a land claim lodged in 1980 and subject to the Wakaya Alyawarre (Repeat) Land Claim lodged in 1990.

The bill directly contributes to targets under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, under which governments have committed to a 15 per cent increase in legal rights and interests to land and sea by 2030. Legal recognition of rights and interests is critical to enable First Nations people to maintain distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic relationships to land and waters.

Rights and interests in land are a central pillar enabling First Nations Territorians to harness economic development opportunities, including from key priorities, including the transition to renewable energy, Future Made in Australia and critical minerals.

The government acknowledges the work of the traditional owners, the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory government to reach this significant step towards the realisation of land rights and looks forward to the finalisation of the grant of Aboriginal land to the traditional owners.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.

I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024 and the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024, at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bills.

I move:

That business intervening before order of the day No. 8, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 3 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add "relating to social media minimum age".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 6 and 7), after "A provider", insert "(other than an exempt provider)".

(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 18), after item 3, insert:

3A Section 5

Insert:

exempt provider has the meaning given by section 63CA.

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 18), after "Providers", insert "(other than exempt providers)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 22), after section 63C, insert:

63CA Exempt providers

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a provider of an age-restricted social media platform is an exempt provider at a particular time if, at that time:

(a) the provider has complied with:

(i) its risk assessment obligations under section 63CB; and

(ii) its risk mitigation obligations under section 63CC;

in relation to the age-restricted social media platform; and

(b) a determination under subsection (2) is not in force in relation to the provider and the age-restricted social media platform.

(2) If the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that a provider has not complied with its obligations mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) in relation to an age-restricted social media platform, the Commissioner may make a determination, in writing, that the provider is not an exempt provider in relation to the age-restricted social media platform.

63CB Risk assessment obligations of providers

(1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must undertake an assessment (a risk assessment) that identifies and assesses the risks associated with providing the service to age-restricted users.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the provider must have regard to the following matters in undertaking the risk assessment:

(a) the dissemination of illegal and harmful materials to children;

(b) the dissemination of online scams to children;

(c) negative effects on children's best interest;

(d) serious negative consequences to children, including their physical and mental wellbeing;

(e) the matters (if any) specified in the legislative rules.

(3) The provider must exercise due diligence in undertaking the risk assessment.

(4) The provider must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year:

(a) give the Commissioner a copy of its risk assessment as prepared under subsection (1); and

(b) publish that risk assessment on a publicly available website.

(5) A risk assessment given or published under subsection (4) must be accompanied by a report including the following:

(a) details of the risks identified;

(b) indications of the severity of the risks;

(c) measures of the scale of the risks in Australia;

(d) a risk mitigation plan about managing and mitigating the risks in accordance with subsection 63CC(2).

63CC Risk mitigation obligations of providers

(1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must have policies, procedures and systems to monitor, manage and mitigate risks associated with providing the service to age-restricted users.

(2) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must prepare a risk mitigation plan in relation to risks identified in a risk assessment prepared by the provider under section 63CB.

(3) The plan must identify measures to manage and mitigate those risks.

(4) Without limiting subsection (3), such measures may include any one or more of the following:

(a) changing advertising systems, including the way advertisements are targeted at or presented to children;

(b) improving internal business processes to maximise safety;

(c) taking targeted measures to improve child safety, such as age assurance or parental control tools;

(d) taking into account the best interests of children when making decisions.

(5) The provider must take reasonable steps to implement those measures.

(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 26), after "A provider", insert "(other than an exempt provider)".

(7) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 4), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A — Amendment of the Online Safety Act 2021 relating to data access schemes

Online Safety Act 2021

17A Section 5

Insert:

data access scheme means a scheme prescribed by rules made for the purposes of section 160B.

17B After Part 9

Insert:

Part 9A — Data access schemes

160A Simplified outline of this Part

The Commissioner may make rules to provide for one or more data access schemes. The rules may require a provider of a social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service to give access to data to approved independent researchers in relation to the safety of end-users of the service.

160B Commissioner may make rules for data access schemes

(1) The Commissioner may, by legislative instrument, determine rules providing for one or more data access schemes that require a provider of a social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service to give access to data for the purposes of independent research about the identification, assessment and mitigation of risks in relation to the safety of end-users of the service.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), rules made for the purposes of that subsection may:

(a) provide for different means by which approved independent researchers are given access to data under the rules; and

(b) provide for procedures relating to requests for access to data by approved independent researchers under the rules including, but not limited to, time limits within which providers must deal with requests for such access; and

(c) make provision in relation to fees that may be charged by providers before access to data is given to an approved independent researcher, under the rules, which must not exceed the reasonable costs arising from providing the access; and

(d) provide for the giving of information to the Commissioner by providers in relation to the following:

(i) requests for access to data under the rules;

(ii) actions taken in relation to such requests; and

(e) provide for approved independent researchers to give information to the Commissioner on a voluntary basis, being information that the approved independent researcher obtained under the rules.

(3) If rules are made for the purposes of subsection (1), the rules must provide for criteria to be satisfied before the Commissioner approves a researcher to be given access to data under those rules, in relation to one or more of the following:

(a) the research project in respect of which the researcher is to be given access to data;

(b) the qualifications and experience of the researcher;

(c) how conflicts of interest will be dealt with;

(d) the organisation (if any) on behalf of which the researcher will conduct the research project concerned;

(e) the proposed sources of funding for the research project concerned;

(f) the technical and organisational capacity to fulfil data security and confidentiality requirements of:

(i) the researcher; and

(ii) the organisation (if any) on behalf of which the researcher will conduct the research project concerned.

(4) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (3) must also provide that a researcher must not be approved to be given access to data under those rules unless:

(a) the researcher certifies that data to which access is given under the rules will be used by the researcher only in conducting the research project concerned, and that the results of the research project will be made widely available; and

(b) the researcher certifies that the researcher will not use the results of the research project concerned, or data to which access is given under the rules, for the purpose of obtaining commercial benefit or advantage.

(5) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (3) must also provide that a researcher must not be approved to be given access to data under those rules unless the researcher is willing to enter into a standard form confidentiality agreement (see subsection (6)) with each provider that will give the researcher access to data.

(6) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (3) must also prescribe a standard form confidentiality agreement, which:

(a) must be directed towards protecting the security of services and data; and

(b) without limiting paragraph (a), must specify that, if data to which access is provided includes information that is:

(i) protected information; or

(ii) personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988); or

(iii) any information the disclosure of which the provider reasonably considers might cause a significant security vulnerability for the service or provider;

the information will not be further disclosed except:

(iv) in the case of information other than personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988)—with the consent of the provider that provided access to the data; or

(v) in any case—otherwise as required or permitted by law.

160C Compliance with rules regarding data access

A provider must not contravene rules made for the purposes of section 160B.

Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.

160D Remedial directions — contravention of rules regarding data access

(1) This section applies if the Commissioner is satisfied that a provider has contravened, or is contravening, rules made for the purposes of section 160B.

(2) The Commissioner may give the provider a written direction requiring the provider to take specified action directed towards ensuring that the provider does not contravene rules made for the purposes of section 160B, or is unlikely to contravene those rules, in the future.

(3) A provider must not contravene a direction under subsection (2).

Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.

17C At the end of subsection 163(1) (before the note)

Add:

; (q) section 160C;

(r) section 160D.

17D At the end of subsection 164(1)

Add:

; (r) section 160C;

(s) section 160D.

17E After paragraph 165(1)(r)

Insert:

; (ra) section 160C;

(rb) section 160D.

I thank the minister's office for the deep engagement on this bill. I spoke extensively yesterday on my reservations about it, on which I won't go into detail again now, other than to say that what I've attempted to do with these amendments is to create an exemption framework in order that social media platforms may be able to bridge the gap between having to ban young people from being inside a platform and actually doing something about the way that they run their platforms.

I have a really strong position that it's far too simplistic and it's a bandaid measure to simply lock young people out of the platforms, and that where we need to get to—and I'm not entirely convinced that the minister disagrees with me on this, because I know that the minister has spoken about a duty of care—is getting the platforms to take responsibility for what is happening. I strongly believe that simply locking kids out is not going to achieve that. It's not going to make the platforms safer. It's not going to make them more transparent. It's not going to make them manage their algorithms. It's not going to make them either identify or manage risk.

One way of achieving that within this bill, to some degree, would be to create some provisions within this amendment to the Online Safety Act which would incentivise platforms to actually do something about those things. So, in effect, what these amendments do is to progressively make the platforms safer over time and allow the minister or regulators to home in on specific risks. It would mean that the platforms would have to assess their services for various harms—things like dissemination of scams, and negative effects on children's best interests, including their physical and mental wellbeing. It would mean that they'd be required to prepare a mitigation plan which would demonstrate to the government and to the public exactly how they'd reprogram or alter their algorithms and their systems. It would mean that they would have to do risk assessments and mitigation mechanisms together—and this has been demonstrated, internationally, to be an effective tool to increase platform safety, and I don't think there's any reason that we can't begin implementing it here. The point is that, if platforms want to actually move forward and be exempt from the ban, these amendments give them the opportunity to step into the idea of safety-by-design, which I think is really where we do need to get to.

I know that the minister has flagged a duty of care down the track. I tabled a private member's bill—in effect, providing a framework for that—on Monday, but I think a step towards that which would be very productive right now would be to insert these amendments into this bill in order to start moving us towards a systemic approach to online safety, rather than this, I think, simplistic, unfortunately, measure of age bans. So I commend the amendments to the House.

I thank the member. These issues have been well ventilated, and I acknowledge the sentiments contained in her amendments. The Senate is expecting this legislation today, so we need to pass this bill to allow that debate to commence. I thank all members for their contributions. While the government will not be supporting amendments in the House, I call on all members to support the passage of this bill.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 11 (after line 21), at the end of section 239B, add:

(4) If the report of the review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, the Minister must, within 6 months after receiving the report:

(a) cause to be prepared a statement setting out:

(i) the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations; and

(ii) if the Commonwealth Government has not accepted a recommendation—the reasons for not accepting the recommendation; and

(b) cause copies of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.

The evidence is clear that social media platforms are not safe for our kids, and the community wants action. While I have great concerns around the process around the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, I will be supporting this bill. In Wentworth, more than nine in 10 people who responded to my community survey said they were concerned about the impact of social media on young people, highlighting issues like online bullying, screen addiction and exposure to harmful content. Parents in my community want their kids growing up playing outside with their friends, building real relationships with real people, rather than being stuck inside staring at a screen. As a parent myself, that is what I want for my children too. But, even if it is done right, imposing a minimum age of 16 for social media is a blunt instrument and an unprecedented intervention into the lives of our young people.

For such a profound piece of legislation, the haste with which the government has rushed this through the parliament, the lack of engagement that has been undertaken with certain affected stakeholders and the unanswered questions that remain for many parliamentarians is concerning, including what happened in the House just now, where the minister did not even deign to reply to the issues raised in consideration-in-detail amendments by the member for Goldstein. This is absolutely riding roughshod over parliament in a completely unacceptable and unaccountable way.

I want this legislation to work, but the jury is out in terms of whether it will actually be able to have the impact that people want it to and the practicality of whether it can be put in place. That is why I believe it's absolutely critical that, after the ban has been implemented, we have a robust process in place to assess its effectiveness and adjust our approach accordingly. We need to be guided by the evidence, not by obstinacy. Clause 239B of the bill requires the government to commission an independent review of the social media minimum age ban two years after it comes into effect. The independent review is welcome and important. It gives the government of the day the chance to review whether the plan is working and adapt its approach if not. It will have the benefit of evidence from the government's age-assurance trial, the duty of care for social media companies hopefully having been legislated and the two years worth of data on the effectiveness of the ban. However, on the way the review provision is currently drafted, my understanding is that there is not currently a requirement for the government to respond to the review's recommendations. This creates the potential for a scenario like we have with gambling ads, where a detailed inquiry has made clear recommendations to the government and yet we are still waiting for a proper response.

My amendment would ensure that this does not happen by requiring the government to formally respond to any recommendations made by the independent review within six months of receiving it. It is a modest and commonsense amendment that reflects similar requirements in places like New South Wales, where the government of the day is required to provide a formal response to certain inquiries within six months. I understand that the government does not intend to support any amendments in the House, but I would request that the minister commits today to provide a formal response to the independent review as and when it is presented in a few years time.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, my understanding was that you called 'ring the bells for one minute'. It's well past one minute.

I corrected myself and said four minutes. The question is that the question be now put.

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 21), after the paragraph beginning "Providers of certain kinds" in section 63A, insert:

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 23), omit "penalty", substitute "penalties".

(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (after line 13), after section 63E, insert:

63EA Civil penalty for requiring identification documents

(1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not require an individual to produce an identification document for the purposes of verifying the age of the individual.

Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.

(2) In this section:

identification document means a document or other thing that:

(a) contains identification information; and

(b) can be used to identify an individual; and

(c) is issued by or on behalf of a government authority.

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (after line 2), after paragraph 63J(a), insert:

(aa) has contravened section 63EA (requiring identification documents); or

(5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (after line 3), after paragraph (da), insert:

(daa) section 63EA;

I will not hold the House for long. The amendments seek to address age verification, and this bill explicitly defers the commencement of age verification to provide the industry and the eSafety Commissioner with sufficient time to develop and implement appropriate systems. My amendment would prevent social media platforms and other tech giants from requiring personal ID documentation for the purposes of age verification. Personal data is highly valued by corporations and particularly by social media companies, and so I think it's incredibly important that we do not provide an environment that greenlights the harvesting of personal data under the guise of protecting under-16s. I therefore call on the House to support these amendments to provide some safety around this bill for the personal data of millions of Australians with social media accounts.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to. All those of that opinion—do you wish to have the call, Assistant Minister?

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

What is the member for Warringah after?

I just want a clarification. The member for Mayo moved her amendments. I understood the Deputy Speaker to have put the question on the amendments. The assistant minister—

No, I stated the question; I didn't put the question, and the assistant minister has moved that the question be put now. If it helps the House, the question before us is that the question be put.

The question now is that the amendments be agreed to.

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Australia urgently needs to reduce emissions and transition to a zero carbon economy. My community of North Sydney have long realised that the net zero transition is not just an obligation but an opportunity to revitalise Australian industry, increase productivity and meaningfully improve the quality of life for all Australians. In that context, my community largely welcomes the Future Made in Australia policy package to attract invest investment in low-carbon technologies and projects in Australia and leverage the financial and industrial opportunities that arise from the global transition to net zero.

The Guarantee of Origin scheme will underpin the Future Made in Australia package by establishing a critical carbon accounting framework on products made under the package. Specifically, the scheme will function as an internationally aligned, voluntary certification program for low-emissions products and renewable electricity. Certification will initially focus on renewable electricity—through the creation of renewable energy guarantee of origin certificates, or REGO certificates—and hydrogen and associated products through the product guarantee of origin certificates. There will be potential for a phased expansion to low-carbon liquid fuels and green metals.

There's a real need for this. Within the Australian economy there is a lack of trusted, consistent information about low-emission Australian made products and no enduring mechanism to certify renewable electricity. I welcome the government's efforts to provide a legislative framework for a voluntary scheme to certify products such as hydrogen and renewable electricity. However, we must exercise a large degree of caution when implementing such a scheme.

Product guarantee of origin certificates can be likened to a nutrition label that accumulates information, as the product moves through each stage of production, and signals healthier food choices to customers. In this case, these new certificates will indicate lower emissions products. As with all ticks of approval that purport to certify a product, they run the risk of misrepresenting these products. We all remember the Heart Foundation's healthy heart tick which, while intended to help consumers make healthier choices when buying food, drew considerable criticism after ticks were awarded to McDonald's burgers and nuggets. Furthermore, food manufacturers had to pay a fee to get the heart tick on their products, leading to products that were just as healthy, if not healthier, being overlooked by consumers simply because the manufacturer did not apply and pay for the heart tick.

When it comes to certifying environmental credentials, a poorly devised scheme risks greenwashing products by providing a government tick of approval that consumers assume they can trust. The government's own Climate Active carbon neutral scheme has been criticised for lacking credibility and integrity in climate neutrality claims, with the climate neutral certification being awarded to Ampol, for carbon-neutral petrol, amongst others. Other international certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil have also faced their share of criticisms. The lessons from these certification schemes are clear: we need to exercise caution when providing a stamp of credibility. A poorly designed scheme risks being used to greenwash products, undermining the intended benefits of certification, and ultimately to support the fossil fuel industry.

On the other hand, a well-designed Guarantee of Origin system could play a pivotal role in supporting the production and use of low-emissions products. It could allow manufacturers to make objective and credible claims regarding the emissions associated with their products and encourage more informed investments, spurring growth of market forces focused on cleaner energy and low-carbon products. It could boost Australia's competitiveness in emerging export sectors, such as clean energy and sustainable metals and fuels, while accelerating the global transmission to net zero emissions.

It could provide voluntary participants with significant advantages, including access to policy opportunities and funding support, such as the hydrogen production tax incentives, and reduced trade barriers through alignment with international market standards. This is particularly important as other economies bring in carbon pricing, making it increasingly likely that goods imported from countries, including Australia, with a lower carbon price or no carbon price will face new levies. Global markets such as the European Union are implementing policies like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, increasing demand for certified renewable electricity, hydrogen and other low-emissions products. Australia will need a reliable, transparent and trustworthy certification system to ensure our Aussie-made products meet these emerging global standards. Clearly, it's critical we get this right.

The enabling legislation creates two types of certificates: a product guarantee of origin certificate to record attributes of products including their emissions, and, as I said before, a renewable energy guarantee of origin certificate, or the REGO, a new form of personal property which can be traded, retired and used to support claims about the use of renewable electricity, largely replacing the Renewable Energy Target scheme from 2030. The bill also empowers the minister to make rules and administer the scheme, establishes the Clean Energy Regulator as the administrator and regulator of the scheme and provides the Clean Energy Regulator with associated mandates and powers.

Beyond this, however, much of the detail for the Guarantee of Origin scheme for different products will be set out in subordinate legislation, including rules made for the administration of the scheme and the methodology determinations. While it's appropriate that highly technical elements be housed in subordinate legislation, it's difficult to properly scrutinise the scheme given so much detail is left to later codes and regulations. This was explicitly noted by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which stated:

A number of provisions in the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024 (the main bill) seek to allow for the rules, made for the purpose of the main bill, to determine or provide various matters that are relevant to the Guarantee of Origin scheme that the bill seeks to establish.

The committee went on to say:

Where a bill includes matters in delegated legislation, the committee expects the explanatory memorandum to the bill to address why it is appropriate to include the relevant matters in delegated legislation…

Yet in this instance the explanatory memorandum does not provide a justification for why this is appropriate for inclusion in delegated legislation rather than in the primary legislation.

Many stakeholders who contributed to the inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024 and related bills submitted that it was essential there is a genuine consultation and opportunity for feedback on design features, noting that the detailed methodology underpinning the scheme should be released and consulted on properly. I agree with many of the submitters to the bill's inquiry who called for the timely passage of the legislation for the renewable electricity and product guarantee certification, balanced with proper scrutiny and consultation. It's important that the rules and methodologies underpinning the scheme are prioritised and finalised in a timely manner to ensure the scheme can commence as soon as possible. But it is equally important that they are available for proper public consultation so that industry and other stakeholders can provide feedback on the scheme's detailed operational elements.

To the product guarantee of origin certificate specifically: these certificates will track and verify the carbon intensity and other key attributes of products throughout the product's entire life cycle. This will include information on emissions associated with the supply of raw materials, production, storage and transport to the point of consumption or international departure. However, currently the legislation makes no mention of offsets or Australian carbon credit units. While the consistent position of the government has been to exclude offsets from the calculation of the embedded emissions of a product, under the GO scheme their use is not explicitly excluded in the legislation.

A number of experts, including the Australian National University's Zero Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, have recommended including an explicit statement in the primary legislation that offsets cannot and will not be allowed to be used to lower product-embedded emissions in the PGO. They have warned that enabling offsets in the Guarantee of Origin scheme would compromise the scheme's integrity, facilitate greenwashing and potentially undermine the interoperability with international schemes and markets. While I don't believe it's the government's intention to allow offsets to be used for this purpose, I do believe the exclusion of offsets should be made explicit in the primary legislation to guard against potential future backsliding on this really important design feature.

I thank the assistant minister for his constructive engagement on this issue and welcome the government's amendments to this effect. It's particularly pertinent given the history of this scheme. Consideration of a hydrogen certification scheme first emerged as a key government action under the National Hydrogen Strategy under the last government in 2019. Back then much of the talk was around clean hydrogen, a misleading term that grouped green hydrogen, which is produced using electrolysis and zero-emissions electricity and does not create greenhouse gas emissions, with hydrogen, which used fossil fuel stocks—these do cause emissions—combined with unproven and unsuccessful carbon capture and storage.

The coalition has recently reiterated this in the coalition senators' dissenting report to the inquiry into this bill. There they stated that the Guarantee of Origin scheme's original intent under the then coalition government was to:

… cover a variety of ways in which clean hydrogen could be produced, including from renewable sources and from methods using gas or coal with substantial carbon capture and storage.

It's not unreasonable then to assume that a future coalition government might seek to use this scheme to facilitate greenwashing-polluting industries.

I now want to turn to the renewable energy Guarantee of Origin certificates. These REGO certificates will certify that the electricity linked to them is verified as renewable. They will be tradable, will enable the holder to claim the benefits of renewable electricity use and will offer detailed information about the generation and delivery of electricity, including the facility age, fuel source, time of generation and facility location. They are intended to operate alongside the existing large-scale generation certificates under the current renewable energy target until this system is phased out in 2030, after which they will function as the primary certification method for green electricity. This is widely welcomed.

The renewable energy target has successfully accelerated investment in new renewable supply, but continued investment in renewable generation is needed post-2023 in order to reach net zero. Continuity of a renewable energy certification scheme is essential so those investing have policy certainty. At the same time, expectations are changing as to which renewable energy attributes a certificate should contain, making it an opportune time to shift to a modern certification scheme. However, this shift has raised the controversial issue of how to deal with pre-1997 renewable generation capacity—specifically, whether those projects should be able to generate certificates or not. Ultimately, this issue goes to the purpose of the renewable electricity element of the Guarantee of Origin, and there are differing views as to what that purpose is.

If the purpose of the REGO scheme is to purely meet information needs for energy buyers and their stakeholders, then it would make sense to include all generation capacity. However, if the purpose of the scheme is to incentivise new renewable investments, as the current renewable energy target does, then it would make sense to exclude older capacity. Below-baseline certification inclusions in the REGO scheme would be a departure from the large-scale generation certificate scheme, which deliberately excluded old hydro and biomass projects built prior to 1997 because they didn't add to the renewable energy supply.

The result of this policy change would be a massive gain to two government-owned firms, Hydro Tasmania and Snowy Hydro, for projects that were built decades ago. In fact, the Smart Energy Council estimates that the windfall gain for old hydro and old biomass projects at 2023 large-scale generation certificate prices is approximately $200 million. This has raised concerns that allowing access to below-baseline generation may place downward pressure on the LGC price and may negatively impact the investment case for new projects. I know the government has considered this issue in detail and has responded in part, but, while the bill provides for rules to be created which could restrict the surrender of these certificates to new emissions-intensive trade-exposed entities, given the complexity of this issue and the ramifications of this policy decision, I believe the government's position should be made clear in the primary legislation.

In summary, the Guarantee of Origin scheme could play a really important role in Australia's energy transition and create an enduring renewables certification framework to empower the purchaser to purchase green energy, with the inclusion of energy attributes giving customers choice about the type of certificate they want to purchase. It's a welcome move—one supported by my community of North Sydney. But, to get it right and ensure the scheme is not used to facilitate greenwashing, it is critical there is proper scrutiny of the rules and regulations that will govern the operation of the Guarantee of Origin scheme. While it's appropriate for highly technical matters to be included in delegated legislation, I urge the government to ensure proper and detailed consultation on the rules and methodologies underpinning this scheme, to explicitly rule out the use of offsets and to make clear the government position on below-baseline credits within the primary legislation.

I think I come to this debate with some credentials, having worked on country-of-origin labelling, which was fought for over a long period of time whilst I was the leader and deputy leader of the National Party and then the former Minister for Agriculture, as part of a coalition agreement with the Liberal Party. That's part of the reason we brought it forward and managed to get it through. It was a bit of a battle at the time, and final negotiations were between myself and the former member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane. Every time you pick up a can of goods and see the triangle with the kangaroo in it and the bar graph below, I get a great sense of pride, because I can say I had very much to do with that. In fact, it will be a notation, when I leave here, in my memoirs of something I did. If I forget about the time I was in parliament, I'll go buy a can of beans and see what's on it!

That was just a statement of fact about exactly where something came from. If you actually want to make things in Australia, then you've got to be completely honest with how it comes about. You have three basic components. One is the raw materials, like gas, iron, coal and iron ore, that go into it. They're sold on the global market, and they come at global prices. There are no real tricks to them. That is what it is. Then you've got labour costs, for which you're at a distinct disadvantage to places such as Bangladesh, China or India, and nobody is suggesting we match them in labour costs. That is not what the great joy and blessing of living in Australia is about. It's about having quality of life in an egalitarian nation where you have equal opportunity to get ahead. The third part is incredibly important: it's the price of energy. That used to be our strategic advantage. That was how we did it. We had some of the cheapest energy in the world.

Other issues have come to the fore and take primacy over that. Other issues are now apparently more important than having the cheapest energy. We no longer have the cheapest energy, and there's no prospect of us ever having the cheapest energy again under the current party. The best way to ameliorate it is nuclear, and I'll get to that in a second. We have to be the adults and understand what we are doing. You can have all the modelling from here to gazoo, from the CSIRO, AEMO and whoever you want. But the trick in accountancy—these are the former sins of an accountant—is, as we used to say, to get in the helicopter of reality and fly above your papers, look down on them and see if they make sense. When you fly above the reality of our energy grid, we had a direct correlation between the increase in 'intermittents' and something else. They are not renewables, and that is a sort of benevolent nomenclature and a very good trick—to call it something it's not to make you feel good about it. They are not renewables. They are intermittent power. The places they are procured from are intermittent power precincts. They are certainly not farms. Farms grow spuds, beef, carrots and marvellous things like that. They do not grow steel towers. That is not a farm; that is an intermittent power precinct. That is an industrial area.

But, as we increase our draw on intermittent power, the price of power, unsurprisingly, keeps going up. In fact, last year it would have gone up by 30 per cent. I know the government gave some of the taxpayers back their money—temporarily—but it still went up, and there's nothing that's saying it's going to change. It is so astounding that we live in this pixie world—this absolute alternative universe. Last night I saw people earnestly look down the barrel of the camera and say: 'The way we're going to deal with our power crisis is to turn the power off. Turn off your air-conditioners. Don't have them on. Don't be cool.' It's almost a cry: 'You can't be cool, if you want intermittent power.' That's just a sign of abject failure.

My area is one of the poorer electorates. People can no longer afford to live. 'You can heat or you can eat,' as the saying goes. In winter, they can't afford the power bill to stay warm. In summer, they can't afford the power bill to stay cool. So they move out of the house. You do get people living in their car. This is not Australia. This is not the Australia we're supposed to have created. We've created an area where we've made the poor poorer, and we do it because we say, 'There's some virtue in it.' The Australian teachers federation says, 'It's virtuous to do this.' It's not. It's garbage. It's cruel, and it has to change.

When it comes to manufacturing, no-one is going to come here and set up a factory if you can't even keep your air conditioner on. No-one is going to take you seriously if you've got the highest power prices in the world. No-one's even going to look at you. You can have all the bills you want, but, until you decide to get the fundamentals right, it's just a narrative. It's just rhetoric. The people who can judge whether or not you can make something in Australia, naturally, are the major global manufacturers: Krups, Siemens, Microsoft, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, General Motors, General Electric, Rolls-Royce, Boeing, Airbus, Embraer from Brazil, and more. They'll determine whether or not you can make something in Australia. They've made a choice: the answer's no. If they thought that we were on the correct path, if they truly thought that we had it worked out—they're not dumb—they'd be lined up. They'd be saying: 'Quick! Go buy some industrial area, because we're going to set up a factory. Australians are geniuses! They've done it! They're power alchemists. They've finally done it! We're all going to go to Australia.' No major manufacturer is coming. They might be selling their products here, but they're not moving here. They might even assemble them here, but they're not moving here. They're not making them here.

Take the swindle factories—your intermittent power precincts. Why do I call them 'swindle factories'? It's because even things like the capacity investment scheme get a return despite the power that they don't produce. That's bizarre, and it's secret. It's commercial-in-confidence—a rolled-gold, taxpayer-backed government annuity for no real purpose but to make rolled-gold billionaires richer. That's what it does. Yet they've got you on a string because they say, 'If you don't support my right to provide a vital and essential product—only for me, the private person; not from the government—you can only buy my product at my price.' That's called a monopoly, and that's why they make so much money out of you. We sit back and say, 'That's okay,' because we know that, if we don't do that, the children will instantaneously combust. They guilt trip you into it. You've got to step back from them and say: 'Look, my position on climate change—for or against it—is irrelevant. My position on whether you are ripping us off is incredibly important.' If it's so virtuous, then it should come at a virtuous price, and it's not. The taxpayer is paying for this garbage by underwriting it, and then the pensioner in the weatherboard and iron is paying for it when it arrives there.

It affects the price of groceries. For the essential manufacturer, it must happen domestically. So the price of your groceries goes through the roof, your power bill goes through the roof and, because other people are saying, 'How do I get a return to maintain my lifestyle?', rents go up and then builders—we have builders going at home at the moment—say, 'Well, mate, the price of products is going up, so the price of your house is going up. It is no longer 1,300 bucks per square metre or 1,600 bucks per square metre; we are now talking about $2,000-plus per square metre.' The extension of the new house costs more, so guess what you have to do? You need to charge more rent to pay for it.

We sit back here living in this alternate universe because we don't pay for that. We don't pay for the power. As an accountant, I get a bill for that. As an accountant, I get a bill for my staff. As an accountant, I get a bill for my car. As an accountant I get a bill for fuel and my phone, but not here. There is this disconnect of the actual realities of what happens in people's lives. You have this aura, you have this protection, you have this life ring on that, unless you are really focus, disconnects you from the reality of the person in the weatherboard and iron and the pensioner who can't pay their power bill.

Going back to making things in Australia, if they can't afford to live, how do you think a smart organisation with rooms full of cost accountants are going to ever make any decision? When you make a decision in a big corporation, you have to get it across the board. It is called a capex proposal—a capital expenditure proposal—and there is a lot of work in it. If it is small, you have discretion and you can basically approve it yourself. At a certain level, it has to go to your branch line manager, but, if it is big, it goes to the board, and you have got to muscle it through the board. I was a very small-wheel cost accountant in a very big organisation called Conagra, a big American multinational in big food production. Big decisions had to go to Chicago and go through the board. These were small bald men who could make grown men run and cry. They were rather tough. You are not going to get anything through a board if it does not stack up and as a return to the shareholder—nothing. You have to actually put a proposal of the cost of energy at the time and going forward. You can try and hedge it. Sometimes for big things such as fuel, you can take hedging contracts out through Singapore but you would have to be buying diesel in megalitres. They look at Australia and go, 'Apparently they are going to do it with windmills and solar panels that are made in China—they can't even make them themselves.' We had one person who tried to make wind turbines but they have gone broke. They were in Tasmania. It is ridiculous. The people who make them for us use coal-fired power.

This nation has to become as powerful as possible in the full sense of that word as quickly as possible. With the rise of totalitarianism, the rise of China, the waning of democracies globally, yes, we have a duty to try broaden our economy is make it strong because the time is coming quicker and quicker when we will have to more and more stand on our own two feet. We have to be aware.

We want the United States of America to be strong, we really do, but they have got to the inversion point where their interest bill will be higher than their defence bill. We have to read the tea leaves for our children about what could possibly be coming their way. Yes, I want us to become as powerful as possible as quickly as possible and, yes, I want us to have a manufacturing sector. In the past—to be honest, it is all over now—I raised a very good argument at the time about why we shouldn't close down our car industry. I was derided, with people saying, 'Do you think this thing will make tanks if we get into strife?' And I said, 'Absolutely, 100 per cent, that is precisely what I think it is going to do.' But those days are gone. If we want to bring them back, we must become adults and flood the market with baseload energy.

Energy is like physics. It doesn't matter what you think of me, or your views. It is just physics. It goes out a little bit below 50 hertz. If it does not go out a bit under 50 hertz then it does not work. It is like arguing against gravity—9.9 metres per second. That is how it works; you have to get baseload onto the grid. We used to use it with the spinning capacity of coal-fired power.

If you want to do a proper analysis—I know the analysis they throw around; I had the CSIRO in my office the other day. You have to have a more fulsome analysis of everything, a complete system analysis, which, to be quite frank, would show that the cheapest form of power would be to the refurbish coal-fired power stations. Nobody disagrees that that; that's how you do the cheapest form. But, if we're going to go down the path of zero emissions, if that's the goal, if that's the grand nirvana, then you've got to have 24/7 spinning capacity at zero emissions, and the only way you're going to get that is with a different rock boiling steam to turn a turbine. We used to use a black rock called coal; now we're going to have to use a different rock called uranium. There are no other tricks to this.

The only other nation on earth, serious manufacturing nation, that's neither got nuclear power nor imports it via a transmission line from a nation that does is New Zealand. That's it. Even Ghana and Bangladesh are going down the path of developing a nuclear industry. Kenya, Uganda, Laos, Vietnam are all going there, and we're going to go there too; Australia is going to go there too. It's just a matter of time. We can get there now and be the smart ones developing it, or we can buy it like we've bought everything else from overseas at a later stage. That's what you're going to end up doing. You won't even be manufacturing your own small modular reactors. You'll be importing that with your car, your fuel and every other cursed thing that you need in your life in Australia!

News outlets are presently reporting power outages impacting thousands of residents in Wagga Wagga. And it's not just at that large inland city in southern New South Wales; it is also Henty, Holbrook, Rand, Culcairn, south of the largest inland city in the state. Thousands of houses in Wagga Wagga are without power as the oppressive heat wave continues to grip parts of New South Wales: that's what the media reports are suggesting. Reports of a blackout were first recorded at about 5.30 am on Wednesday, today, affecting more than 6,000 customers. They are Essential Energy customers.

The fact is at the moment in Wagga Wagga it is 21 Celsius. The fact is there hasn't been a heatwave, as suggested by the media outlets. The fact is it is the second power outage that the city has experienced just in recent weeks. We had a storm go through there several days ago and knock the power out for many of the homes and many of the businesses—not anywhere near half the homes or businesses, I might add, but many thousands of people were affected.

This is the thin edge of the wedge. If you can have a storm but not a huge storm, if you can have hotter weather but not a heatwave affecting power like this, then what is going to happen when we have a real storm or, indeed, when the weather reaches temperatures, as it normally does in Wagga Wagga, of the old 100 Fahrenheit, the old century mark of 38 degrees Celsius? That will come in summer, in December, January through February. That's how hot it gets in Wagga Wagga.

I remember some years ago suggesting that nobody will really worry too much about blackouts. And we'd had some dreadful blackouts in Adelaide, with thousands upon thousands of South Australia's affected. I said, 'Well, people won't really get all that worried until one of the day-nighters at one of the major cricket grounds is cast into pitch blackness,' and I was mocked. I was derided by the media. And do you know what? It was only a week or so later when that's exactly what happened.

Heaven help us if we do have to power shed this summer, as we will, and Tomago, our largest electricity user, is forced to shut down, forcing people off duty. It is a real worry. If you can't have reasonable, cost-effective power, how on earth are you going to have a future made in Australia manufacturing? I'm all for making things in Australia and ensuring we have manufacturing jobs and factories producing things in Australia, but there is so much folly about this bill. The purpose of this package of three bills is to initiate a guarantee of origin scheme to track and verify emissions connected with products made in Australia. Further, it provides a mechanism for renewable electricity certification. That should send a shiver down many people's spines. The framework of the Guarantee of Origin scheme aims to 'transparently'—note that I say that word rather facetiously—determine where a product came from, how it was made and what its total emissions were. It will initially cover hydrogen and renewable electricity but will expand over time to cover other products.

The bills will also establish the renewable electricity Guarantee of Origin certification mechanism, to acknowledge the renewable energy component of the electricity used in a production process. I don't know about others, but I think we're treading into very dangerous territory, and I'll tell you why. These bills fail to be technology agnostic, and everything that we've said and done as a coalition when it comes to energy has included the word 'balance'. We've always said that we need to have a correct and proper balance. Renewables are fine, but this rush to renewables by the Labor government puts at risk jobs, costs and, indeed, our ability to produce things—to make things in Australia. It puts at risk our farmers. It puts at risk our ability to grow food and fibre.

The bills also show bias against hydro in favour of wind and solar. The Snowy hydroelectricity scheme, which is in the Snowy Valleys—soon to be incorporated again into the Riverina electorate—was built, to begin with, to be not only a hydroelectricity scheme but also an irrigation scheme for the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and, later on, for the Coleambally Irrigation Area, which utilised that life-giving product called water that Samuel McCaughey pioneered for that particular region in the late 19th century.

When John Oxley the explorer went through the area now known as the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, that Garden of Eden, he described it as land that no-one would ever want to inhabit. It was a veritable desert, and he described it thus. What those irrigation pioneers did—the likes of Sir Samuel and those World War I veterans who were sent there and given a small plot—was turn that desert into a food-producing area. Now we have a government that wants to not only bring in bills such as this but also buy all the productive water out of the system, such that our farmers—some of them debt stressed—have a distorted water market. And once that water goes out of the valley, it very rarely comes back. At the behest of the Greens, who hold Labor by the nose and pull them along, all that productive water is sent out of the mouth of the Murray and out to sea and, thence, it can't be used.

If we're going to have a future made in Australia, the first thing we should be growing is food, not just for our people but for many other nations besides. Our food is the best. Our food is the cleanest. Our food is the greenest. I could have replaced the word 'food' with 'farmers' in every one of those sentences, because our farmers are the best stewards of the environment in the world and they do grow the best, the freshest, the cleanest and the greenest food, and whether that's at Shepparton or in the fine state of Tasmania, or in Queensland or New South Wales, right across this nation our farmers are champions. These bills don't align with the efforts that our farmers go to to produce that food—a future made in Australia.

Speaking of alignment, these bills also do not align with overseas schemes. Whilst alignment with international geoschemes has been a recognised priority of industry, apparently, the preclusion of technologies such as blue hydrogen using gas with carbon capture and storage puts Australia's scheme at odds with similar schemes being established in the European Union and the United Kingdom.

But do you think Labor cares? Do you think Labor worries about those concerns that I and others have with these bills?

It's also a great risk for Australia, putting a trojan horse for a broader, economy-wide, carbon price. We all remember what happened when, in late 2010, the then Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon price,' or carbon tax, 'under a government I lead,' and that was perhaps right then. But then of course we had Bob Brown as the Greens leader—and I will say one thing about Bob Brown: he was an environmentalist, first and foremost and probably only. These days, the member for Melbourne and the member for Griffith and all the other Greens cabal from that Greens political party are not environmentalists. They want to just change society for the worse. They want to tear down traditions. They want to strip away all the things that have made this country great—but I digress.

Then Prime Minister Gillard held a press conference, in that unholy Greens-Labor alliance, and placed a price on carbon. And we know what happened after that.

That said, what we see here is a scheme intended to initially cover hydrogen. The government's plan will expand it over time, and the devil will be in that detail. That's what you have to worry about, because it's not what is in the bill per se, as it stands now; it's what a future Labor government, and a Greens-teals-crossbench—and who knows what parties they'll gather together if need be—will do in the future.

It bears little resemblance to the policy of the former coalition government. The coalition's approach was technology-agnostic. The coalition's approach was balanced. The coalition's approach was practical and sensible. It understood and took on board what stakeholders said or suggested should happen.

We do need a future made in Australia, and I'm not so blind as to say that we shouldn't take on board green energy suggestions. I met with Helen Philippidis, the Manager of Corporate Affairs at the Australian Gas Infrastructure Group, just on Monday. This group is one of the largest infrastructure businesses in Australia, with assets valued at more than $9½ billion. They're suggesting a considerable project in the industrial hub at Wagga Wagga, and, by the looks of it, this project will provide a 10-megawatt hydrogen electrolyser that will blend up to 10 per cent renewable hydrogen into the local network. We have to look at these things, seriously, and we have to take them on board for the effort and the investment that are being put in. I know that the project is also intended to work in conjunction with an anaerobic digester to be built. I know what they're doing just outside Parkes, with converting waste into energy. These are good and sensible ideas. The project at Parkes is taking on board what they're doing at Kwinana as well, over in the west. These are good and sensible projects, and people are happy to back them. But this particular bill and this package of bills are not good.

What also worries me is that so many of the energy projects in and around my area, these huge solar farms, are taking up valuable prime agricultural land. You've only got a certain amount of farmland, and, once it's taken, it's decades before you potentially get it back, and then who knows what leaching will be in the soil anyway? But what happens is that they're considered significant state priority projects, and the New South Wales government comes in and just rides roughshod over local people—local residents, local ratepayers and local councils, be they shire or city councils. In either case, they are people elected by locals to do the job for them. They don't get a say, because the state government says, 'Oh, no, this is a state significant project.' Some of the projects are as small as $5 million, yet, because they're considered state significant, Macquarie Street just rides roughshod over the local council and over local people. It's just not right. It's just undemocratic. We live in Australia in 2024. We should be far better than that.

Yes, we do need a future made in Australia. We do need the factories and the farms to be operating as efficiently and as smoothly as possible. We don't need them to have to continue to pay huge power bills. What is happening at Wagga Wagga and elsewhere in southern New South Wales today, with the tripping, the outages and the power blackouts, is just, as I said, the thin end of the wedge. I hate to think what's going to happen during the rest of the summer if a small electrical storm or a little bit of hot weather can knock out the power like that.

I too rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024. When I spoke on other bills in relation to this, such as the Future Made in Australia Bill, I began—I'd like to remind people of this—with a tour of the industrial part of Shepparton, the main city in the region that I have the great honour of representing, and I talked about driving around. If I could take people on a virtual tour, we'd be driving down Old Dookie Road and New Dookie Road, and we'd turn right and see Noumi, a brand-new manufacturing facility that takes a huge amount of milk from the dairy farmers in the immediate area, who work so hard to produce that milk and invest so much of their capital and are hoping to have enough irrigation water to be able to grow the feed for those cows. That milk comes into Noumi, and Noumi turns that into UHT products. A lot is for the domestic market, but a lot of it gets exported. It's a heat process that turns that milk into something that can be exported. I've been to China. I've been to a supermarket in Shanghai where I've seen that product on the shelf being sold for quite a large amount of money.

You can turn around then, and you'll see SPC, now called SPC Global, which is an iconic food manufacturer. Every time I talk about SPC in this place, I renew my invitation to everyone in this place: if you want some SPC peaches, they're in my office, so just go and help yourself, please. Member for Swan, you're also welcome to come and do the SPC taste challenge. You do a blind tasting of the SPC processed fruit and the Chinese import, and then you'll see how good made in Australia really tastes if we look after those industries.

I'll come to your office.

Yes, I look forward to that. SPC's had an interesting history. Fruit processing is not what it was, because we're a lot better at getting the fresh products onto the table now than we used to be, so people don't have as many processed fruit products as they used to, but there's still a market there. They also have tomato manufacturing. Again, that's a heat process.

J Furphy & Sons manufacture tanks and have been doing so since the late 1800s. Nowadays, those tanks are high-tech stainless steel engineered tanks for the beer, wine and milk industries and all sorts of other things, but when they started out in the late 1800s and early 1900s they were making water tanks, and those water tanks went over with our diggers to World War I, in the field. The diggers would all stand around the Furphy water cart having a drink and exchanging gossip and rumours, and that's where the term 'furphy' comes from. I think there are a few furphies told in this place, more this term than previously—anyway, I digress.

Rubicon has manufactured great things in irrigation technology. We have a company called Pental, which manufactures a lot of chemical products. White King is a brand. Campbell's Soup gets a lot of vegetable products from around the area and manufactures them in Shepparton into processed food products. There's another one called MC Pipes. MC Pipes is a manufacturer of large, concrete pipes for housing developments—crucial.

We sit in here and we talk about housing. We fire across these missives to each other on housing, and the Greens do their thing on housing. But, if we're going to increase supply, we've got to make sure that everything that goes into a new housing development is manufactured at an effective cost. Just one of those things, which is manufactured in my electorate, is the big stormwater drainpipes. We've got to make sure that those companies have a future made in Australia if we are going to look after them.

The reason I mention all of those businesses in my electorate of Nicholls is that I talk to them often. What they need is cheap and reliable energy. The cheap and reliable energy in Victoria has come—and will probably come for a bit longer—in the form of burning brown coal in Gippsland, and that's what we did. In other parts of Australia, we burn a higher quality coal to create cheap baseload dispatchable energy. We did that for a long time because we had it and it was cheap, and we'll probably still do it for a while. The reason we didn't look to technology such as nuclear, when every other country was, is that we thought we could keep burning this coal into the future. But climate change and the challenges associated with that have led us, and many around the world, to say that we have to eventually get out of fossil fuels at the rate that we're burning them at the moment. I accept that.

When I came into this place, in my maiden speech, I said that climate change is a big challenge and, to stop some temperature rises that would cause some real challenges for us in the future, we need to act with the globe. But what I also said was that how we act is critical because, if we get it wrong with unrealistic timelines and we have an ideological approach to technologies that feel good or we might think are the right technologies, then we could really stuff up Australia's economy. We might see businesses, like the ones I have just talked about in my electorate, move offshore because they can't get cheap and reliable energy in Australia and so they'll go and find cheap and reliable energy somewhere else. Global emissions won't have changed. It won't have the slightest effect on the climate change challenges that the globe faces, but what it will have a big effect on is Australia's ability to manufacture.

The reason we are so worried about this bill is that it's got that ideology: 'We feel good about this technology, so we're going to put all the eggs into that basket.' Green hydrogen is just one of those things. When the former coalition government began this sort of scheme, the program was originally designed to certify and track the emissions intensity associated with hydrogen production, allowing buyers, both domestic and international, to verify the green credentials of energy sources that would feed into the production processes for hydrogen. But Labor seems to have hijacked this policy principle. This scheme, and the reason we've got so many problems with it, is that it's not technologically agnostic. It favours some forms of renewables—wind and solar—over others, like hydro. It could become a mechanism for a broader economy-wide carbon price. The member for Riverina outlined the history of that. He's been in this place a lot longer than I have, and he talked about some of the challenges with that.

Again, this bill is about that ideological 'this technology feels right so we're going to back it' approach to our energy transition. But scientific knowledge and the analysis of what is viable moves really fast. I dare say it moves a lot faster than governments and parliaments, so this picking winners idea where governments think, 'This is the way to go; we're going to pick this winner,' is problematic. Picking winners is problematic at any time. I went to Derby day and tried to pick some winners, but I had no success. But the next day at Mornington I did a lot better and my wallet was a bit fuller. I don't bet much, but I have a flutter around the Spring Racing Carnival. But what Labor are doing is going to the races and saying, 'We're going to put all our money on this horse,' and that's what I worry about, especially when there are so many options around the world.

I'm really happy that this debate is happening because it didn't previously. But I wish it was a bit more of a sensible debate in this place about nuclear energy. It's one of the tools that can help get us to a cleaner energy future and make sure that we have the baseload power for a genuine future made in Australia. We are up against countries that are using this technology to power their factories, to make sure their factories have got enough electricity.

When I came into this place and talked about climate change, I said we have to use all the technologies in the world to be able to approach this big challenge of how do we have a future made in Australia when we can't burn coal anymore? You look around the world and you say—and I did. I went to Europe last year. I was looking at education, but I asked everyone, 'What are you doing about making sure that your industry has enough energy to continue?'

In Sweden they said: 'We don't talk about renewables anymore. We don't say we have a renewable future. We say we have a low-emissions future.' They've commissioned new reactors. Finland is fascinating because the Finnish Green League are interested in reducing carbon emissions. They're not interested in having this fight about what sorts of technologies we use, they're just interested in reducing carbon emissions for the benefit of the planet. So the Green League in Finland are supportive of nuclear energy because they think that's a good way for them to get there. Germany is ruing relying too much on renewables and piped gas from Russia. France is very pleased that it has gone down the path where 70 per cent of their energy is from nuclear. Canada is moving towards nuclear. The United States is moving further into nuclear.

One of the most powerful things that was said to me—this goes back to the very ideology of this bill, which is the picking winners thing—is that we don't know what's going to be a winner. Everyone thought green hydrogen was going to be a big winner a year or two ago and now we're seeing it may not be the big winner that it looked like it was going to be. Companies are pulling out of green hydrogen. Now, it might come back. Someone might find a way to make green hydrogen work, and I hope so. But if it doesn't and the government has put all of its eggs in that basket, then I really worry about where we're going to be.

But what was said to me by an expert in energy and energy systems—at the moment nuclear fission is good and it's a technology we should be heading down. The best time to start was yesterday, but if you didn't start yesterday then you have to start now. But he said: 'What if fission works? What if nuclear fission becomes the technology that really takes off?' It's not there at the moment. It's not there yet.

Do you mean 'fusion'?

Fusion, sorry. Thank you. I appreciate that. What if fusion takes off where fission hasn't and we're not even in the fission game? Every other country will have a massive advantage in getting into nuclear fusion because they are already in fission. I'm not enough of an expert to know whether fusion is going to be the future, but the concept of Australia keeping all of its options open for all the technologies that are out there is really important.

What this bill does is put all our eggs in one basket. It's very focused on green hydrogen and it's very focused on some other things. Like a lot of the government's investments, it's very ideologically narrowly focused. I worry that, if some of those things don't take off or if technology goes off in a way that we didn't predict, we are not going to be in the game globally. That's frightening for Australia and it's frightening for the people of the Goulburn Valley. If those businesses that I started out with in this address leave our shores, there'll be a lot of people in my electorate who won't have jobs anymore. If those people don't have jobs, they won't have money. Their living standards will go back even further than they have done. So we really have to focus on making sure we protect Australia's manufacturing future, and this bill is not it.

I would like to start by commending my colleague the member for Nicholls, who has made an exceptional contribution on this bill, the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024. In fact, I fear I am at risk of repeating many of his fine arguments in my own contribution. I rise to speak in favour of the member for Fairfax's second reading amendment. As has been made very clear, we in the coalition do not support this Labor version of the guarantee of origin. When we were in government, we had a very different scheme that we hoped to be supporting through this parliament, but, regrettably, what has been brought forward by the government is vastly different to what we intended to do when we were in government. That is regrettable because a proper guarantee-of-origin scheme would be an excellent thing for this country. What is being proposed in this bill is a lost opportunity to give that certainty and that opportunity to so many industries that would be looking for the system that we intended to legislate for.

I would like to start by giving a shoutout to the HILT CRC, coordinated by the University of Adelaide. I have had a lot to do with them over the years. I met with them when they were applying for and, happily, were successful under the previous government through the CRC funds at getting support. 'HILT CRC' stands for the Heavy Industry Low-carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre. They are doing work on trying to crack some of the challenges that are in place when it comes to industrial chemistry and commercially viable technology to undertake some of those very high-emitting heavy industry processes.

We know that getting the energy that's generated and zapped down the transmission lines of this country to net zero through zero emissions technology is nowhere near enough to address the totality of emissions. One of the big ones that's probably got one of the most challenges is those industrial processes and heavy industries that emit a lot. It is very difficult to replicate those processes from the 240-volt power connections. I think this figure is still accurate, but it's certainly been the case for a long period of time that seven per cent of total emissions comes from steel alone. I think cement is about five per cent. The really important industries for the planet but particularly our country like steel, cement and aluminium at the moment are high in emissions. We have to come up with commercially viable solutions to address how they can become carbon neutral.

In my home state of South Australia, the state government are putting a large amount of state government funds into building a hydrogen plant in the iron triangle. I wish them well, but there are some very concerning early signs about how that project is tracking and where it is going to end up, particularly from a cost point of view and whether or not the markets that were believed to potentially be accessible to that plant once it is constructed will exist in the form that was envisaged by Labor when they developed this scheme. It now seems that the timelines that were promised—they can't be concealed from the public; you know if you are or are not successfully building a hydrogen electrolyser plant—on that commitment are running dramatically late. But what isn't known in the public domain is just where the financial situation, the cost of that plant, has landed. Around half a billion dollars, I think, was initially earmarked by the Labor government in South Australia to build that plant.

I have deep concern and I think any reasonable observer would have deep concern that not only the delays to that but also the likely cost blowouts for building that plant seem likely to be quite significant. If they weren't, you would think there'd be a lot more transparency around what is happening with that project from the state government's point of view than there currently is. In fact there were attempts, I believe, to establish a select committee in the legislative council to look into that project, and they were blocked. So the transparency around what's happening there is extremely concerning. I think the dreams of what might be possible and when for hydrogen at that plant that the South Australian government is building are pretty well replicated across all of the hoped-for hydrogen developments across this country and really across the world.

There was a lot of early hype around what and where hydrogen might lead to, but regrettably a lot of boardrooms are making a lot of decisions to cancel a lot of investments in hydrogen projects and infrastructure around hydrogen because it seems to be that the sort of market that some believed might develop in a certain timeframe is not eventuating. Some of the major partners, particularly in Japan and South Korea, who seemed to be very enthusiastic around hydrogen produced in Australia for their markets, are not quite as enthusiastic as they have been in the past. Here we have before us a bill that we're discussing that could be very different to what the government's brought to us, and that's regrettable because the huge focus that they've got on green hydrogen through this is not panning out to have the same likelihood of significant success that some believed it would in previous years.

As the member for Fairfax points out in the amendment to the second reading, we have significant criticism around the fact that this is not a technology-agnostic proposal. We have obviously made a decision in the coalition that there is no prospect of getting to a 'net zero by 2050' circumstance in this country without nuclear—reliable base-load generation which is obviously also emissions free. As the member for Nicholls pointed out, as we see the retirement of coal generation, that reliable base-load generation which completely underpinned the industrial development of this country for many, many decades, we want to see that replaced by an equally reliable base-load generation, being nuclear power. Not only can nuclear be a huge part of generating electricity to go through our electricity market and power our homes and businesses but nuclear has enormous applications across the other elements and challenges of getting to net zero.

The heat produced from nuclear is a big opportunity for certain industrial processes. The heat that can be created out of nuclear is very superior to what you can create from three-phase electricity powered heat capability. Even with nuclear heat, there are heat requirements in certain industrial chemistry and certain heavy industries that not even nuclear can create, and those are challenges that need to be cracked. People like the HILT CRC are working on exactly that, because at the moment there is no real commercially viable non-carbon-emitting alternative.

That's why we recognise that there'll be some processes that will always emit carbon and we need to accommodate the need to offset emissions. Net zero isn't absolute zero. Net zero is net zero, and there will undoubtedly be processes in certain industrial transformations from which the emissions will need to be offset, because there's no solution other than continuing to undertake chemical reactions that release carbon. None of that is accommodated in this bill.

I have my friend the member for Braddon here; he is a proud Tasmanian. One of the most egregious things in this bill is that legacy hydropower generation capacity, which is resplendent throughout the great island of Tasmania, is for some bizarre reason excluded from being eligible for this scheme. Now, that surely is an oversight. I can't possibly imagine why hydropower is excluded. I concede that the government have got an ideological objection to nuclear, but I've not identified that they've got an ideological objection to hydropower—certainly not in the modern era. I know there was a time when dams in Tasmania had a degree of controversy, for different reasons to emissions reduction, but the fact that existing hydro-powered plants that have serviced Tasmania and, in fact, export that great clean energy across Bass Strait to Victoria are excluded from this scheme is just nonsensical. Hopefully that's something that the government recognises. If they're not prepared to consider other points, at least don't do this to the poor people of Tasmania.

Obviously, the other thing that we think is very odd and where we need as much international interoperability as possible—because getting to net zero is a global effort that is also going to involve a lot of cooperation and collaboration between economies—is that we've got a situation where our scheme doesn't align with the one that's been designed for the EU and the UK. So our Guarantee of Origin scheme, if it passes this parliament, won't be compatible with the schemes in the EU and the UK. That's greatly disappointing, because that's an enormous opportunity lost for Australian businesses that could see an export opportunity, potentially, if we had a scheme that was aligned with the EU and UK one and accredited to that. There would be businesses that would be operating under our scheme that would also have an opportunity to access markets in the EU and UK with that accreditation through our Guarantee of Origin scheme, if it were properly aligned with those overseas ones, and the proposal here from the government does not do that. So that, of course, concerns us.

Most importantly, we have a very credible concern that this is the beginning of creating something akin to the previous carbon tax regime that the Gillard government introduced, Certainly, this bill heads down that path. It provides a mechanism for putting a price on carbon again, and that is something that the Australian people have spoken very comprehensively on. Indeed, if the government believe that that would now be popular, they're very welcome to take that to an election and have it as their central campaign position. But to bring, through this legislation, a mechanism that could well open the government up to putting a price back on carbon by stealth again is something we bell the cat on very much in this debate. That is what the member for Fairfax is doing through the second reading amendment.

It is regrettable that this is a lost opportunity to have a bipartisan bill that would have been able to continue on from the work we did in our last term, would create something that would provide certainty for Australian industry and, of course, would be agnostic in relation to the great opportunities around technologies like nuclear that we look forward to presenting to the people of Australia at the upcoming election. It is very regrettable that, again, the government are not open to the people having their say on a matter like that through this legislation. So, indeed, I support the second reading amendment from the member for Fairfax. We don't support this bill for all the reasons outlined. I commend the member for Fairfax's amendment to the House.

This is a very interesting bill, to say the least. I hate to disappoint listeners and members in this chamber, but I can't support it, because of the reasons I'll outline. The Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024 and associated bills are really quite extensive, but, on reading an analysis guided by the investigative powers of the Parliamentary Library, it has confirmed my worst fears. This is another renewable subsidy boondoggle.

We all know that the current renewable energy subsidy scheme will come to an end at the end of 2030. The hope then was that everyone would just be paid for electricity, not paid for generating large-scale renewable energy target-induced large-scale generation certificates, small-scale renewable energy schemes developing small-scale technology certificates, and energy efficiency certificates and energy savings certificates—at least in New South Wales, Victoria and the national electricity market.

There is a cost to all these certificates that we have in our system now. The value of these gets paid for by retail and wholesale customers. That's included in the price that people pay for their electricity. They sound really innocuous—large-scale generation certificates, small-scale technology certificates, energy efficiency and energy savings. They're all innocuous, but basically it's about $4 billion every year just to meet the 2024 targets. The LGCs from large-scale wind and solar are $1.6 billion. There are 33 million of these certificates floating around already. Similarly, the cost to retail customers of small-scale technology certificates to meet the 2024 target is $1.516 billion. The Victorian scheme is $788 million and the New South Wales Energy Savings Scheme is $108 million.

These LG and ST certificates will come to an end at the end of 2030, but this new Guarantee of Origin scheme is all about carbon emissions accounting and more certificate generation. The whole system is going to create registered holders of either a production certificate or a delivery or consumption profile, and they will generate PGO certificates for each batch—each one-megawatt hour—of green electricity that produces green hydrogen. This certificate will add a whole new level of complexity and will continue the current system onwards from 2031.

The industry can actually touch up the value of their certificates, and that is buried in the details. These certificates will then be labelled 'REGO' certificates, and after 2031 starts there will be the ability for them to be aggregated, so even small-scale renewable projects that are used to generate green hydrogen will be able to take part in this festival of a second line of payments behind the electricity or the renewable energy generation. The Guarantee of Origin scheme was originally planned for hydrogen, but it could be applied across the board in many other sectors.

We have had to have a moment of reality—both economic reality and reality about the amount of energy produced in hydrogen compared to the amount of energy that is invested and used up in generating the hydrogen. Legislators and regulators thought that, just by creating a parallel scheme to LGCs and STCs—that we are burdened with now—we would, all of a sudden, have an amazing huge hydrogen superpower in this country because everyone around the world will want to buy green hydrogen. But, around the world, renewable hydrogen projects are being jettisoned time and time again. The hard-nosed energy return on energy investment is really negative with hydrogen. In terms of electrolysis alone—which is what is planned to produce green hydrogen; there are people who are deadly serious about appropriating colour labels to hydrogen—the serious people who need hydrogen need an awful lot of it for rockets and missiles. And, if you do want to produce steel in a green way, you will need a massive increase in the amount of hydrogen to do that, rather than using coal and gas to produce steel.

There are 70 million tonnes, in the whole world, of hydrogen being produced as we speak. Seventy-six per cent of that comes from gas, and 23 per cent comes from coal. But, by 2050, the plan was to increase that to 287 metric tonnes, mainly in the green energy and the hydrogen superpower plans that this government has for Australia. It would have to be massively scaled-up, beyond anyone's rational comprehension. Around the world, we have, in total, only 5,000 kilometres of hydrogen pipelines that can actually take hydrogen gas and cryo-compressed liquid hydrogen. We would need three million kilometres of new pipes. You can't put that amount of hydrogen into gas pipelines or into gas turbines. There is a limit to how much hydrogen you can use. Also, to make hydrogen by electrolysis in these hydrogen hubs—which is the plan, using our renewable energy certificate makers—they will need nine litres of distilled fresh water to split with electrolysis and heat to make one kilo of hydrogen. In a country like Australia, to get pure hydrogen means either setting up a desalination plant and then a distillery filtration system or taking water out of our rivers that is already dedicated to growing food and providing water supply for cities. To get 287 metric tonnes of hydrogen would use prodigious amounts of water, which Australia doesn't have.

The hydrogen withdrawals around the world are falling like dominoes because everyone has gone with this promise of huge amounts of energy. They've been sold a policy position: 'We'll just change from gas and coal, and we'll make a lot of hydrogen.' These policies have been made by scientists, but they're political scientists. They're not necessarily hard-nosed chemical engineers or electrical power and gas and oil industry engineers who understand the scale of this project. That's why we've seen Fortescue Metals drop their plans. In the Financial Times, in America, in the financial pages, you'll see hydrogen projects meeting reality. But I'm concerned that we will continue on this path of thinking that this is actually achievable.

Australia does need a hydrogen industry because it's a very important industrial chemical, particularly if we're going to have missiles and rockets and things that are essential for our defence. We'll need a hydrogen source. We need it, but to think that we naively expect these plans to be reality is quite scary. In fact, Princeton University, Melbourne university and Queensland university, along with other energy groups, have analysed the cost of this green energy hydrogen superpower scenario, and it will mean 23,000 kilometres of new poles and wires and millions of acres for renewable energy projects, which will consume vast amounts of water. All these processes need to be constant to be efficient, but they will stop at night, on cloudy days or when the monsoons are coming and we have lows across all of Queensland and New South Wales.

To make hydrogen and then to make ammonia requires a huge amount of energy. We have to be realistic. You can have your grey hydrogen from methane—that's natural gas, and you get four molecules and one carbon. Or you can have blue hydrogen, which is splitting natural gas again—methane being split. This is called 'methane reforming'. You add on carbon capture and storage, which is a known technology. There are two ways to make it, but they're both energy intensive.

Could someone play the dark scary music again? Because we're going to talk about coal. There is a lot of hydrogen made from coal and it's called 'black' or 'brown'. Then there's pink hydrogen at the end. That's made by electrolysis of water, but the heat and the electricity are coming from a nuclear power plant that produces bountiful, constant energy at a reasonably low cost. I have visited hydrogen plants in Korea and Japan; the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water did a tour. Korea and Japan have an amazing industrial capability, but their ambitions are being met by energy reality. They will invest billions and billions if they think it can be produced, but they're all coming to the same conclusion. We are in that situation here now.

I call all these schemes to everyone's attention. These new rego certificates will be traded like large-scale generation certificates, small-scale technology certificates and all these energy-efficiency and energy-saving schemes, which every electricity user pays for now. People have to realise that these green schemes are not free. They cost a lot on your electricity bill. The cost of the extra transmission in the system is also being subsidised separately by other policies. There's a huge grant allocation in the budget to help rewire the nation with a lot of grids that are totally unnecessary. They're there to supply a transmission vehicle for energy that is only going to be produced by a big solar farm for 24 per cent of the time, at best. If it's coming from a wind farm, either at sea or on land, it will be produced for an average of 34 per cent of the time over a year, at best. The rest of the time, they won't even have electricity in them, because they're plugged into these renewable megaprojects. Unless there is electricity being generated, which stops when it's cloudy or when it's night or when we have big rain events for days or weeks on end, it's just going to sit there. And all these grids get paid money for their capital costs. They have a fixed return on it.

Part of this renewable energy mania has involved New South Wales and Victoria, I'm told. The regulatory investment test was set by the regulatory system. Before a new grid could be built or upgraded, it had to go through the regulatory investment test. But that has been abandoned, so a lot of these grids are being approved without an economic basis.

But, again, guess what costs retail customers 42 to 45 per cent of their bill now? It's their grid costs. The energy-generating cost is actually one of the smaller parts of your bill. The cost at the power plant is one thing, but to get the power from the plant, which can be a wind farm, a solar farm or rooftop solar, involves a lot of grid costs. So this current plan is going to double or triple the costs—or quadruple them if they did the whole hydrogen superpower and green energy superpower plans. Our bills won't go up by just the 20 per cent planned for next year; it'll be multiples much greater than that. In fact, this whole value of certificates— (Time expired)

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question before the House is that the question be put.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

For the clarity of all members, I will step through what has happened for the House. We moved a second reading amendment that was defeated on the voices. We then put the question about the second reading of the bill. The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking the call.

by leave—There was confusion as to whether we were on the amendment or on the second reading question, that the bill be agreed to. We certainly want a division on that second reading. I move:

That the second reading of the bill be rescinded and the question on the second reading be put again.

Question agreed to.

We will now deal with that issue. The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum, an addendum to the explanatory memorandum and a further addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (25) as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (25) as circulated, together:

(1) Clause 28, page 25 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph (2)(c), substitute:

(c) a location where the product enters a pipeline, or other infrastructure, that is part of a shared network and conveys the product;

(2) Clause 28, page 25 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:

(6) In making a determination under subsection (3) or (4), the Regulator:

(a) must have regard to:

(i) guidelines (if any) prescribed by the rules for determining a location to be a production gate or delivery gate; and

(ii) the matters (if any) prescribed by the rules; and

(b) may have regard to any other matter the Regulator considers relevant.

(3) Clause 29, page 27 (lines 15 and 16), omit subclause (9), substitute:

(9) In making a determination under this section, the Minister must have regard to:

(a) the objects of this Act; and

(b) the extent to which the determination was developed in accordance with the following objectives:

(i) to be transparent and complete, by representing an accurate accounting of all material greenhouse gas emissions for a product's supply chain without carbon offsetting using carbon credits;

(ii) to be consistent with other determinations made under this section and comparable with internationally agreed standards, taking into account domestic circumstances or requirements;

(iii) to be practical and minimise the regulatory burden on registered persons;

(iv) to be based on the latest available scientific evidence as aligned with international frameworks.

(4) Clause 38, page 34 (lines 5 to 12), omit paragraphs (2)(c) to (g), substitute:

(c) if the product is consumed at a single facility—the following information:

(i) the name and location of the facility;

(ii) whether the facility is connected to a pipeline, or other infrastructure, that is part of a shared network and conveys the product;

(iii) each person who owns or operates the facility or a part of the facility;

(iv) whether the facility is an NGER facility;

(v) whether the facility is a designated large facility;

(d) if the product is consumed at multiple facilities—a description of those facilities and their connection to:

(i) a pipeline, or other infrastructure, that is part of a shared network and conveys the product; and

(ii) the registered person who is, or is to be, the holder of the consumption profile;

(5) Clause 38, page 34 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraphs (4)(b) and (c), substitute:

(b) if the profile specifies that the product is consumed at a single facility—the following information:

(i) the name and address of each person who owns all or part of the facility;

(ii) the name and address of each person who operates all or part of the facility; and

(6) Clause 41, page 35 (lines 12 to 19), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Regulator must not register the profile unless:

(a) if the profile specifies that the product is consumed at a single facility—the Regulator is satisfied that:

(i) either subsection (3) or (4) applies to the facility; and

(ii) if the facility is connected to a pipeline, or other infrastructure, that is part of a shared network and conveys the product—the product could reasonably pass through the pipeline or other infrastructure to the facility; or

(b) if the profile specifies that the product is consumed at multiple facilities—the Regulator is satisfied that:

(i) the product could reasonably pass to those facilities through the pipeline or other infrastructure specified in the profile; and

(ii) it would not be practicable for the registered person to create a consumption profile in respect of each of those facilities.

(7) Clause 41, page 35 (line 20), omit "the facility specified in the profile", substitute "a facility".

(8) Clause 41, page 35 (line 30), omit "the facility specified in the profile", substitute "a facility".

(9) Clause 52, page 43 (lines 1 to 4), omit the clause.

(10) Page 46 (after line 12), at the end of Subdivision A, add:

56A Request for further information

(1) If a person makes a request under section 56 (registration of certificates), the Regulator may, by notice in writing, require the person to give the Regulator, within the period specified in the notice, such further information in relation to the request as the Regulator requires.

(2) The Regulator is not required to decide the request, and may cease considering the request, if the person does not provide the required information within the period specified in the notice.

56B Withdrawal of request for registration of certificates

(1) A person who makes a request under section 56 (registration of certificates) may withdraw the request, in writing, at any time before the Regulator decides the request.

(2) If the person withdraws the request, the Regulator must cease considering the request.

(11) Clause 59, page 48 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (2)(b), substitute:

(b) if the consumption profile specifies that the product is consumed at a single facility—the name and location of the facility;

(ba) if the consumption profile specifies that the product is consumed at multiple facilities—a description of those facilities;

(12) Clause 59, page 48 (lines 11 to 21), omit subclauses (5) and (6), substitute:

(5) If the consumption profile specifies that the product is consumed at a single facility, the Regulator may refuse to add the information if the Regulator is not satisfied that:

(a) if the facility is connected to a pipeline, or other infrastructure, that is part of a shared network and conveys the product—the batch of the product was consumed at the facility or another facility connected to the pipeline or other infrastructure; or

(b) otherwise—the batch of the product was consumed at the facility.

(13) Clause 59, page 48 (line 25), after "consumption profile", insert "directly or indirectly".

(14) Page 49 (after line 3), at the end of Subdivision B, add:

59A Request for further information

(1) If a person makes a request under section 59 (addition of consumption information), the Regulator may, by notice in writing, require the person to give the Regulator, within the period specified in the notice, such further information in relation to the request as the Regulator requires.

(2) The Regulator is not required to decide the request, and may cease considering the request, if the person does not provide the required information within the period specified in the notice.

59B Withdrawal of request for addition of consumption information

(1) A person who makes a request under section 59 (addition of consumption information) may withdraw the request, in writing, at any time before the Regulator decides the request.

(2) If the person withdraws the request, the Regulator must cease considering the request.

(15) Clause 75, page 61 (line 2), omit "in respect of electricity generated by", substitute "in relation to".

(16) Clause 79, page 63 (lines 20 to 29), omit paragraph (2)(e), substitute:

(e) for each of the components that make up the facility:

(i) the registered person owns the component alone; or

(ii) the registered person owns the component together with one or more other persons and a written agreement is in force between the registered person and each of those persons to the effect that the registered person may apply to register the facility and create REGO certificates relating to electricity generated by the facility; or

(iii) the registered person operates the component, either alone or together with another person, and a written agreement is in force between the registered person and each owner of the component to the effect that the registered person may apply to register the facility and create REGO certificates relating to electricity generated by the facility; and

(17) Clause 80, page 65 (lines 9 to 18), omit paragraph (2)(d), substitute:

(d) for each of the components that make up the facility:

(i) the registered person owns the component alone; or

(ii) the registered person owns the component together with one or more other persons and a written agreement is in force between the registered person and each of those persons to the effect that the registered person may apply to register the facility and create REGO certificates relating to electricity dispatched by the facility; or

(iii) the registered person operates the component, either alone or together with another person, and a written agreement is in force between the registered person and each owner of the component to the effect that the registered person may apply to register the facility and create REGO certificates relating to electricity dispatched by the facility; and

(18) Clause 81, page 66 (line 24), omit "in respect of electricity generated by", substitute "in relation to".

(19) Clause 81, page 67 (lines 12 to 21), omit paragraph (4)(e), substitute:

(e) for each of the components that make up the facility:

(i) the registered person owns the component alone; or

(ii) the registered person owns the component together with one or more other persons and a written agreement is in force between the registered person and each of those persons to the effect that the registered person may apply to register the facility and create REGO certificates relating to electricity generated or dispatched by the facility; or

(iii) the registered person operates the component, either alone or together with another person, and a written agreement is in force between the registered person and each owner of the component to the effect that the registered person may apply to register the facility and create REGO certificates relating to electricity generated or dispatched by the facility; or

(iv) the registered person neither owns nor operates the component, but a written agreement is in force between the registered person and each owner of the component, and each operator of the component, to the effect that the registered person may apply to register the facility and create REGO certificates relating to electricity generated or dispatched by the facility; and

(20) Clause 91, page 74 (line 19), omit "from the amount", substitute "in relation to the amount".

(21) Clause 93, page 76 (line 19), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; or (c) the certificate is covered by the rules.

(22) Clause 94, page 77 (lines 23 to 27), omit subclause (3).

(23) Clause 104, page 83 (lines 17 and 18), omit "an amount of electricity (the relevant amount) that is".

(24) Clause 104, page 84 (line 11) to page 85 (line 2), omit subclause (6), substitute:

Energy storage systems

(6) If the registered renewable electricity facility is an energy storage system, the Regulator must not register the certificates unless:

(a) there is a direct supply relationship between the energy storage system and an electricity generation system, and that direct supply relationship is covered by the rules; or

(b) the total number of the following is equal to the number worked out, in accordance with a formula or method prescribed by the rules, in relation to the number of megawatt hours of renewable electricity represented by the certificates:

(i) a number of megawatt hours of renewable electricity that is represented by REGO certificates retired by the Regulator for the purposes of the application at the request of the eligible registered person;

(ii) a number of large-scale generation certificates surrendered by the eligible registered person for the purposes of the application;

(iii) a number of megawatt hours of renewable electricity that is worked out, in accordance with a formula or method prescribed by the rules, in relation to the amount of electricity that has been transferred to the facility from an electricity generation system with which the facility has a direct supply relationship.

(25) Clause 104, page 85 (lines 17 and 18), omit "paragraph (6)(b) or (c), or subparagraph (6)(d)(iii),", substitute "a provision of subsection (6)".

I'm pleased to introduce amendments to the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024. These amendments are important to clarify technical details of the GO scheme operation, improve its functions and efficiency, respond further to stakeholder feedback following the introduction of the bills, and better reflect its policy intent. The government has included an amendment in response to feedback from stakeholders operating gas networks to clarify that consumption information can be added to a product GO certificate even if a batch of product is consumed from shared infrastructure and where a consumer hasn't purchased a product directly from a producer. This will ensure the scheme can apply in a sensible and functional way to the structured reality of gas markets.

The government's also moving an amendment in response to recommendations made by the Australian Greens and Senator Pocock through the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's inquiry. The amendment includes principles that require ministerial consideration of various matters when making production methodology legislative instruments, including using the latest available scientific evidence and not accounting for carbon offsets. I want to acknowledge the constructive engagement I had on this issue with the member for North Sydney.

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the assistant minister be agreed to.

The question before the House is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) and (2) together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 32), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 5 — Double counting

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000

15 At the end of subsection 18(4)

Add:

; or (d) to the extent that:

(i) the electricity formed the basis of calculating an amount for the purposes of the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Act 2024 or a scheme prescribed by the regulations; and

(ii) a certificate (however described) has been created in respect of that amount.

16 After subsection 23A(1)

Insert:

(1AA) However, if a small generation unit is a registered renewable electricity facility (within the meaning of the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Act 2024) or a component of such a facility, certificates cannot be created in respect of the small generation unit after the first day on which a certificate is created under that Act in relation to the facility.

I'm pleased to introduce amendments to the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024. These amendments are important to clarify technical details of the GO scheme's operation. The government has also included an amendment to the consequential amendments bill to amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. This amendment will prevent the creation of large-scale generation certificates, or LGCs, and small-scale technology certificates, or STCs, for renewable electricity that has already been certified under the GO scheme. This effectively prevents double-claiming of renewable electricity and is important to ensure the integrity of the GO and Renewable Energy Target, or RET, schemes. As a matter of common sense and scheme integrity, participants should not be able to certify the same electricity more than once.

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

The question before the House is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Albanese government has a pretty simple belief: we want ordinary Australians on normal incomes to have the chance to own their own homes. Today this parliament will make that happen for 40,000 Australians who would never otherwise have the chance of homeownership.

Lots of aspects of what's going on in Australia with housing concern me but the one I am most worried about is this: 40 years ago, 60 per cent of lower income young people in our country owned their own homes. Today, that is close to 20 per cent. Housing is not just about bricks and mortar. What this statistic tells us is that the life experience of low-income young people is fundamentally different to how it was experienced a generation ago, and our parliament must do something about that. We want more Australians to have the stability and security that come from homeownership, to be able to put family pictures on the wall and not be told they can't, to make decisions with confidence, to know they are raising children in a safe and stable environment; for older Australians, to be able to grow old with security. That is what this legislation is all about. This bill is about Australia's nurses, childcare workers and disability workers. It is about older women who otherwise might be facing a retirement in poverty. It is about single parents who might be able to purchase the home that meets the needs of their families. This scheme builds on the enormous success of programs around the country run by state governments. In Western Australia, more than 100,000 Australians have gone into homeownership through a shared equity scheme.

Help to Buy is one piece of our government's very bold and ambitious housing agenda—$32 billion supporting our country to build more homes, get a better deal for renters and get more Australians into homeownership. Thousands of hardworking Australians who have been locked out of the market will now have a better shot at owning their own home. I want to say briefly of Minister Collins, who sits behind me, this would not have happened without her hard work and the work of her office, and I want to credit my staff also. I want to thank the crossbench. There are some people on the crossbench who bring enormous expertise and constructive dialogue with our government on housing and I thank them for that. And I thank the Greens, who eventually presided passage for this bill.

For all of us in this parliament, politics has many, many moments which feel highly performative and meaningless and then you get moments like this. It is not often that our parliament has the opportunity to change the lives of 40,000 people who need and deserve the help of government but we have that chance today. I commend the bill to the House.

We will not be supporting these amendments, because these amendments highlight the absolute absurdity of this policy. These amendments deal with the potential interactions with state and territory governments, which highlight the fundamental problems with this approach—that is, that we are taking schemes that have existed at a state level in virtually every jurisdiction in this country and bringing them national.

Australians have already voted with their feet on shared equity schemes. Why? Because in states like New South Wales, which had a shared equity scheme, more than 90 per cent of the places available went unused. So what genius in the Labor Party thinks, in the midst of the worst housing crisis ever, 'What policy should we come up with? What innovation, what new thinking should we come up with? Oh, let's take shared equity schemes at a state level and bring them to the Commonwealth.'

Meanwhile we have seen these schemes fail at a state level. Australians watching this may ask: why have shared equity schemes largely failed throughout our country? Because it is all care and no responsibility from the government. The government gets to take a share in your home. There are events that occur, including if your income rises, that might trigger a sale of that property against your will as a co-owner. The government will take their pound of flesh on the upside, but guess what? Even though the government gets to take their pound of flesh at the end, you, as the Australian co-owner of that property with the government, are responsible for every cost on the way through—all the repairs, all the maintenance, all the costs associated with owning that property—yet the government as a silent co-owner steps in at the end, having contributed nothing to those costs, and says, 'We will take our 40 per cent, thank you, including the capital growth in that property.'

So it's no real surprise that Australians have rejected these things. They don't want the Labor Party co-owning their property. It's absurd that, in an environment where this government has brought in 1.4 million migrants with no idea where they're going to live, which is doing them no favours and doing Australians no favours, their answer—their big solution, the new thinking, the innovation in their policy—is to replicate shared-equity schemes that have failed virtually everywhere else. They are bereft of ideas. They've got no idea what they are doing. It's no wonder we see it reflected in every single metric. The scoreboard is very clear. The scoreboard does not lie. We have fewer homes being built. We have fewer homes being approved. We've got fewer first home buyers. On every single metric in this country, housing has gone backwards. And what's the big idea from this government? Replicate shared-equity schemes that already exist elsewhere.

The other part of the story that is inconvenient but highlighted by these amendments is that all of these require state and territory governments to pass their own legislation, again highlighting that these are the province of state governments. The Prime Minister said yesterday that they'd all signed up. Only Queensland has passed their legislation so far. I hate to rain on the minister's parade of this being a heroic moment for her, but this means very little today outside of Queensland because no other state or territory has passed their legislation. This means very little because, until they are passed in state parliaments, this today and these amendments do not take practical effect for any single person who may want one of these products.

Having said that, we know that these have been unused throughout our country. Victoria is winding up their scheme. In New South Wales, again, 90 per cent of places went unused. So again I highlight the point: if you're thinking how you can help first home buyers, why on earth would you replicate a product that's already been rejected? Why on earth would you claim that that is some massive solution to the huge problem that has been exacerbated by the very poor decisions of this government? Quite frankly, we know you've run out of ideas. We know your heart is not in homeownership. Only the coalition believes in home— (Time expired)

This is a good day in the people's house and it's a good day for people looking to buy a house. Today our government delivers on a commitment that I put at the centre of my campaign launch in Perth back in May 2022. It has taken some time to get agreement through this House and through the Senate, but what we have done is make sure that today this becomes policy of the nation. The name of this policy, the name of the bill, tells you everything you need to know: Help to Buy. But those opposite don't want to help people and they certainly don't want people to buy their own home. This is new help for 10,000 aspiring homeowners every year and a new road to homeownership for hardworking Australians.

We've held to this policy in the face of reckless obstructionism and rank opportunism. We've persevered even when we were told there was no chance that it would get through this parliament. We've stood our ground because we care about helping more Australians know the security of a roof over their heads because our Labor government supports the aspiration of homeownership and we want to bring that dream in reach of more Australians. That's what this bill is about. It's a circuit breaker for Australians who have done all the right things. They've worked hard, made sacrifices and saved up as best they can, but they can't save for a 20 per cent deposit and pay rent at the same time. They just can't get their foot in the door. What we've done to support renters, of course, is to be the first government in 30 years to boost rent assistance not once but two years in a row, and we've worked with the state and territories to strengthen renters' rights, but we don't think everyone should have to rent forever.

We don't think you should have to settle for paying off someone else's mortgage when you could be settling on a home of your own. And that's why we're stepping up and helping out. Our Help to Buy plan will put in in 30 per cent of the purchase price of an existing home and 40 per cent of the purchase price of a new home. That cuts your deposit to as little as two per cent. That means you pay less up-front, you have a smaller mortgage and your monthly repayments are smaller too. We are doing this because we know that a home of your own is more than a place to live. It's about security and opportunity, stability and a sense of connection to your local community. It's a foundation on which you can build a good life for yourself and your family, and that's why this legislation is just one vital part of our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan, all of it driving our ambitious target of building 1.2 million new homes by the end of the decade, because we know that the key is, of course, supply.

That's why we're also training more tradies through free TAFE, also opposed by those opposite, building more social housing, public housing and private rentals through our Build to Rent scheme, which we hope to see pass this parliament this week as well, and building more crisis accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence, opposed by those opposite as well and delayed by the Senate, through the Housing Australia Future Fund. We're working with state, territory and local governments across Australia to cut red tape, speed up approvals, unlock more land for construction and build more homes where people want to live, close to family, jobs, services and public transport. These are the practical and positive messages you get from a Labor government.

There's something else all those measures have in common: they have all been opposed at every turn by the Liberal and National Parties. The Liberals talk a lot about homeownership. The shadow minister yesterday was down there talking with the Greens political party at the Press Club. I'll give him credit for this: unlike his leader, he does know where the National Press Club is! So that's a plus. I give him credit. Yet all they have done is oppose everything—oppose more social housing, oppose more public housing, oppose support for people who are renting and oppose more private rentals through the Build to Rent scheme. That is what they have done. Well, Labor stands for homeownership and aspiration. We stand up for superannuation, not trashing it, as those opposite want to do. And today, we send a clear message to Australians looking for help to buy a home: our Labor government is on your side, and I'm proud to join my colleagues in commending this bill to the House.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question before the House is that the question be now put.

The question before the House is that the Senate amendments be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

This week the Australian Energy Market Operator has a dire warning for residents right across New South Wales: your power may go out. Amidst the first real heatwave moving into the Christmas period, our energy grid cannot handle it. I wonder why! It's because we have a Labor government in charge that believes renewables-only will get the country out of the current energy crisis. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy are in a fantasy land if they think that the chaos that could occur due to blackouts this summer period is not their fault. The coalition has been calling on this government to wake up and realise that the grid needs affordable, reliable and consistent energy.

A coalition government will ensure we pump gas into our domestic market to provide more supply, bring prices down and secure Australia's heavy industry. A coalition government will invest in nuclear power to stabilise our energy system to take us to net zero. Australian families should not have to worry about whether they can cook dinner or have the lights on to help their kids with their homework at night. This Albanese Labor government is running our energy system into the ground. Only the coalition will fix this, when elected next year.

I rise to share with the House the sad passing of Warren Acott, 'Woz'. Woz was known to many of us because of his famous Mow Down MND ride to Parliament House, where he rode his ride-on lawnmower from Toolleen in my electorate to Parliament House to raise awareness of MND. Woz was diagnosed with MND in July 2023. It is a devastating disease that affects the nerve cells. Many of us have met constituents who've had situations similar to Woz's.

Woz inspired many with his journey. He met with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, as well as many other parliamentarians. He inspired people with his lawnmower ride to Canberra, and his legacy will be remembered. At one point during his trip, he had a fall, lost consciousness and needed paramedics to take him to hospital. I think many of us remember his bravery and his spirit.

On his passing, I'd like to acknowledge his family for their loss and thank them for sharing their story. Woz was a character. He was a truckie with a big heart, and he didn't want to let his disease get the last word. He made a difference. He made all of us think, and he made all of us a challenge: to make sure that we do more. Vale, Woz. Rest in peace.

As the member for Flinders, I am incredibly lucky to represent some of the most stunning surf beaches in the country. Our back beaches, stretching from Portsea to St Andrews to Gunnamatta, consistently astound visitors with their beauty and intensity. It's therefore no wonder that the Mornington Peninsula makes such a wave in our contribution to competitive surfing on the national level.

This week the Australian Junior Surfing Titles are taking place in Wollongong, and almost 40 per cent of Victoria's 2024 Australian junior titles team—11 out of the 30-person Victorian contingent—come from my electorate: Arieh Paterson, from Somers, is in the under-18 boys; Sara Hickson, from Rye, is in the under-18 girls; Tarvi Woods, from Fingal, is in the under-16 boys; Tahli Browne, from St Andrews Beach, is in the under-16 girls; Harry Cleary and Raff Morris, from Sorrento, are in the under-14 boys; and Sophie Day of Rye and Harper Brown of St Andrews Beach are in the under-14 girls. All are competing on the biggest stage for junior surfing in Australia. Not only that, but Dromana sisters Ava, Mia, and Rose Holland are making their family proud, having all made the Victorian team. The girls are from Dromana Secondary College and are members of the Peninsula Surfriders Club.

As I am ably informed by my surfer mates, there is nothing like it: paddling into the refreshing ocean water, surfboard at the ready, gazing onwards to the impending waves which beckon in the distance. I wish all the challengers in the title good luck in the competition, which concludes this Sunday, 1 December.

Austinmer Public School students have had an opportunity to compete in the Game Changer Challenge and submitted competitive ideas to address real-world problems. Both teams were semifinalists in the Game Changer Challenge, and the students have written short pieces about their projects for me to share with the parliament. The Wicked Thinkers wrote:

We decided to address the issue of bullying, with a focus on cyberbullying.

Our solution is to develop a secure communication app that offers simple reporting features and provides safety videos features explaining different types of bullying, including cyberbullying and how to handle them.

The app connects parents with their child, ensuring they are alerted if any bullying activity occurs, whether their child is bullying or being bullied.

At the same time, the app maintains the child's privacy, only notifying parents when necessary to keep them informed about the situation.

Another team, the Brainwaves, wrote:

Our team, the Brainwaves, has developed a safer and more practical alternative to shark nets.

Our solution uses electromagnetic fields that disrupt sharks' nervous systems.

We aim to test this technology in an aquarium to ensure it effectively protects marine life without causing harm.

The device, made of stainless steel, would be installed 25 meters apart and does not impact other marine species in the ecosystem.

Thank you and congratulations to Evelyn, Gala, Olivia, Clancy and Ambrose from the Wicked Thinkers and Manon, Keoki, James, Bronte and Tameka from the Brainwaves for your really innovative ideas.

Stories of builds that run over budget and over time are plentiful, but the saga of the North Sydney Olympic Pool is a cracker. Last week, residents across North Sydney were dismayed when our local council flagged that they may need to raise rates because of the bungling of what was meant to be the refit of the change rooms at our iconic pool.

Back in 2020, the then North Sydney Council embarked on a project without final designs or proper costings. Then, in a brazen pre-election grab for votes, they were waylaid by a coalition government pledge of $10 million for the project. Four years on, the pool is still closed. Understandably, news of a possible rate hike has many worried, with one person recently asking me why she should pay for the previous council's gross mismanagement.

All of us in this place must learn from runaway infrastructure projects like this and challenge pork-barrelling that runs rampant in the lead-up to elections, because pre-election promises can derail normal governance and sideline community interests. While our current mayor, Zoe Baker, is doing everything she can to rectify the issue, the challenge is significant.

Just in the past week the member for Indi reintroduced the Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024, a private member's bill designed to stop this egregious and cynical behaviour. While they're too late for North Sydney, her proposed reforms would safeguard other electorates. I urge the government to bring on the member's bill for debate as a member of urgency.

This goes to the Dunkley class of 2024: the VCE and grade 6 students from schools in Dunkley who are participating in valedictory events and graduation ceremonies across the electorate. As the mum of a son who has just completed VCE, it was a pleasure to attend the Frankston High School valedictory last week and see young women and men from Dunkley all grown up, graduating and transitioning to the next phase of their lives. It was awesome and nerve-racking. What incredible young people we have in Dunkley. I have no doubt there are many parents feeling apprehension and nervous anticipation about what comes next.

In the next three weeks I will be out and about visiting all the schools in Dunkley and awarding the Louisa Dunkley Shield. I am thrilled to meet with students, staff and parents and to acknowledge a student from each school who has demonstrated equality, fairness and community service. In the words of Dr Seuss:

Today is your day.

You're off to Great Places!

You're off and away!

You have brains in your head.

You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself

any direction you choose.

…   …   …

On and on you will hike.

And I know you'll hike far

and face up to your problems

whatever they are.

Oh, the places you will go! Congratulations to all of you.

We all only live once, but so many in my generation are being denied a chance at a good life. So much of our lives is spent working, paying huge portions of our incomes on rents or mortgages, or, worse, living out of a car. Now far too many of my generation will never know the security of owning their own home. In this parliament, over the last 2½ years, the Greens have fought hard for ordinary people, young and old, whose lives seem only to be getting harder day by day.

Politics has badly failed millions of people in this country, and it's worth reflecting for a moment on a quote by, of all people, Virginia Woolf, who once reflected on the 'instinct for possession and the rage for acquisition which keeps the stockbroker and the great barrister going indoors to make money and more money and more money, when it is a fact that 500 pounds a year will keep one alive in the sunshine'. With those 500 pounds, she wrote, came the freedom to think and write as she pleased. These days, we certainly need a little bit more than 500 pounds a year, but the point remains. We're not asking for much, and, if we made the billionaires and big corporations finally pay their fair share, we could all have the basics we need to live a good life with security and meaning, full of the things that matter—time with family and friends, to go to the beach and, most importantly, to be alive in the sunshine. We're not asking for much, and I think we can certainly achieve that in this country.

We're fast approaching the end of the year, so Christmas time is drawing near. And if you find yourself in the Hunter, consider yourself a lucky punter! There is no better place to be than gathered round the Christmas tree with your friends and family all together in the beautiful Hunter, with hot summer weather. You'll crunch and munch on a tasty Christmas lunch. With our fields so lush and meat so great, you'll be licking your fingers and then your plate. Pair the meal with the world's best wine from the Hunter's vineyards, with grapes so fine. And as for presents, if this year you've been nice, I'm sure Santa's elves won't think twice to load you up with all sorts of gifts; his elves are so busy they're working double shifts! But, if you've been naughty, don't feel bad. The Hunter has done a deal to make you less sad. If you've been naughty on the whole, Santa will bring you some of the Hunter's finest coal! There's no better place to be and no need to take a tally. That's why we really love the Hunter Valley, and that's why I say you're a lucky punter if you find yourself this Christmas in the Hunter. Merry Christmas to you all. I hope you all have a fantastic New Year's as well and spend time with your family, friends and loved ones. I hope you're all safe along the way.

I was really proud of the Medical Research Future Fund that we put in place when in government and of being part of developing the first-ever national plan for endometriosis not only in Australia but in the world. I'm really pleased that Endometriosis Australia has offered a new scholarship to train more endo nurses for regional, rural and remote areas to treat this condition and disease that affects one in seven-to-nine women in Australia. This was part of the original plan, and I'm very pleased that that's getting closer to fulfilment. Can I also recommend that women with endo have a look at CHARLI. The CHARLI app allows Australian women to take control of their diagnosis and manage this debilitating and highly undiagnosed condition. Can I also encourage more of our young women to be able to access to PPEP Talk. These are pelvic pain talks that are being delivered into schools. I want to see as many young women as possible listen to those talks and know when the right time is to seek more help and to understand they need to look at whether they are affected by endometriosis. The sooner that we get to it, the more chance they've got of recovery and a great life.

Labor is here to make a difference, not to play games or do nothing. I'm here to make a difference, not be a bench warmer. We inherited a housing crisis, and we have faced it head on. We never said, 'It's not our job.' Recently, I introduced the housing minister to Swan locals. One of them is Mary Cooper, and she is a firecracker 86-year-old who told us that we need to build homes, not block them. She gets angry when she sees Peter Dutton blocking more homes. She says that he has nowhere to put that anger. Well, Mary, I am putting it here for you—and, like, everyone! Dutton stood in the way of helping everyday Aussies by voting against Labor's Help to Buy Bill. They voted no—

Apologies, but you've got to use correct titles when referring to a member in this House.

Apologies. They voted no to helping more Aussies into homes—nurses, teachers, childcare workers and aged-care workers. He doesn't want to help them into homes; he doesn't care. They haven't come up with any plans to make homes more affordable for Aussies, because he does not care. We're putting the interests of people like Mary first.

Today I want to talk about Charles Jackson OAM from Port Augusta. Charlie Jackson is the South Australian Senior Australian of the Year and an Adnyamathanha man. The Adnyamathanha are the rock people of the Flinders Ranges. Charlie's worked all his life for the betterment of his people in a number of government agencies and outside in different businesses. He's a very erudite man, well-spoken and highly regarded in his community.

In the last few years, I and my office have been working with him trying to get to the bottom of the jumble of what on earth has happened to the Adnyamathanha traditional owners lands trust and its entanglement with a body called Rangelea. In my valedictory speech the other day, I named ORIC as one of the most useless government corporations I've ever seen. How on earth we can have a body which is entrusted to police Indigenous corporations not be able to get the facts and figures needed to get to the bottom of the problems, I do not understand.

I congratulate Charlie for his incredibly strong stance in this area and for leading his people in this transparency case but also for his long life of commitment to his community and to the Port Augusta area in general. Well done, Charlie. He is a very fine ambassador and a very fine pick for South Australian Senior Australian of the Year.

The Australian Export Awards is a national program that celebrates the achievements of Australia's most outstanding, innovative and inspiring exporters, and this year's Australian Export Awards lived up to that reputation. The ceremony was held here in Parliament House last week, and it was fantastic to see plenty of Territory businesses recognised for their significant contribution to the Australian export market.

We had Alana Kaye College from Darwin in my electorate recognised as International Education and Training finalists. We had Australian Blue Cypress again recognised. They're out in Holtze. They were recognised as Manufacturing and Advanced Materials finalists. We had Philip Agri from Durack recognised as a Small Business finalist. The National Feed Company in Katherine was recognised as a Regional Exporter finalist. Rum Jungle Meat Exports in Batchelor was recognised as an Agribusiness, Food and Beverages finalist. Ikuntji Artists from Haasts Bluff, in the member for Lingiari's electorate, were recognised as Creative Industries finalists, and Northern Tide Apparel from Humpty Doo were also recognised.

The Territory continues to punch well above its weight, and with exports it's absolutely no different. As always, the NT and our businesses are leading the way, particularly when it comes to working with First Nations businesses. To all of those organisations I say: well done.

Change rarely begins in this place. It often starts with the relentless efforts of the dedicated few who champion important causes. Today I rise to recognise one such leader of change. Dr Jane Tiller from Monash University has been awarded Research Australia's Health and Medical Research Advocacy Award for 2024. This prestigious honour celebrates her outstanding work advocating for Australia's protection against genetic discrimination in life insurance through genetic testing.

Genetic testing saves so many lives by helping to prevent, diagnose and treat heritable conditions and cancers. Yet many have avoided testing, fearing that insurers will utilise that data in order to deny coverage or increase premiums. Thanks to Dr Tiller's tireless years of advocacy, in September of this year this parliament banned the use of adverse predictive genetic tests in life insurance underwriting.

From a personal perspective, I want to say to all our medical researchers that lock themselves away in laboratories until the wee hours of the morning, devoting their lives to the pursuit of outcomes for their division of science: at the end of that, there are some very real humans who are eternally grateful for your work. Well done to all our medical researchers, and well done to Dr Jane Tiller.

Before starting my own contribution, can I just echo the words of congratulation to Dr Jane Tiller from the previous speaker.

I'm speaking in today's 90-second contribution about a decade of failure under the Liberals in relation to housing. Housing has become a distant dream for too many Australians. Young people have been forced to delay or abandon homeownership because of the Liberals' neglect and mismanagement.

Labor is now fixing the mess the Liberals left behind. Our $32 billion housing plan tackles every part of the housing crisis, from infrastructure to affordable ownership. Our reforms deal with financing and funding and also key bottlenecks, through incentives to local government and funding for last-mile infrastructure. We introduced the First Home Guarantee, cutting the deposit for new homes to just five per cent in some instances. We also invested $1.5 billion to clear infrastructure bottlenecks, a critical part of the system. Two billion dollars have been dedicated to fast-tracking thousands of social homes, and $10 billion in the Housing Australia Future Fund will deliver affordable homes nationwide. Labor's shared equity scheme will help 40,000 Australians buy their homes.

And what have the Liberals done? After their decade of neglect, now they've voted against all of the key measures put forward by the government over the last two years. They have consistently put politics ahead of people. The Liberals' only plan is to force people to raid their own superannuation. This will push up prices and do nothing to add to supply. Economists have lined up to oppose this cynical policy.

After hearing speech after speech from members reading speaking notes from central HQ of the Labor Party, I've got an issue they might be interested to get their heads around: the debacle that was the rollout of round 2 of the On Farm Connectivity Program. Round 1 of the On Farm Connectivity Program, $15 million, took five months to expend.

Now, don't get me wrong. This is a great program. This is assistance to help innovative farmers develop the connectivity across their farm, whether it's for monitoring of water or soil temperature or it's increasing the mobile coverage.

But guess what? Round 2, $18 million, was expended in four days, of which two were a weekend. It wasn't announced publicly. It was on a website that farmers had to find. So, in four days, $18 million—four days. The maximum amount is $30,000. That's 600 applications they supposedly processed in two working days and finished the program off.

I smell a rat, big time. There is something very, very strange going on, and it's very much in alignment with round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, where, in New South Wales, all but one of those towers went into Labor-held seats, and I think eight or 10 of those never got built because there was actually no proposal to build them. Communication is important to the bush, and this government needs to take it seriously.

There was a lot of irony in that one, wasn't there, eh? Mobile phone black spot towers—you have to be kidding! You took every single one and put them in there—27 in Barnaby's electorate, just to keep him here!

Refer to members by their correct titles, please.

I refer to the member for New England—in case people don't know who that was.

Thank you.

Today I stand in solidarity with the TWU and the SDA, and unions across the world, calling for an end to the poor working conditions and low wages for Amazon workers, particularly our locals in the Craigieburn facility. While government legislation reforming labour hire, casual workers and gig work has taken important steps to address some of the issues faced by these good people, more needs to be done. It's no secret that Amazon is anti-union and has no commitment to Australian workers' rights or fair treatment or to fair pay or a fair go. You only have to look at the US and UK to see Amazon's union-busting tactics.

Governments must stop this massive multinational from seeking to deny workers a collective voice and fair conditions. It's a bit rich for a company like Amazon—they think that they have a God-given right not only to dodge taxes and not pay their fair share, but to turn around and rip off the workers who make them their millions.

With Black Friday and Christmas shopping season right around the corner, everyone needs to pause and think—think of the backbone that holds this industry up: the truckies, the workers, the delivery drivers, the warehouse workers. Every single Amazon worker deserves a fair go. Every single worker deserves a safe, respectful and honest workplace. It's time Amazon delivered on that.

The market operator has been warning of imminent blackouts. This morning, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy gave interviews on national television and national radio. At no point did he address the risk which households and businesses face of the lights going out. Later this morning, in a press conference, he was pushed by a journalist on this issue, and he at least assured the people of New South Wales that there would be no blackouts today. Well, today there has been a blackout in New South Wales, with 6,000 households having lost power. It's notable that since that blackout we haven't heard anything from the minister. He's gone to ground. He was very loud and very proud beforehand, but very quiet since that blackout. I'll look forward to him explaining this to the House today: why he's prepared to talk big until a problem hits.

Is this what energy security looks like under a future Labor government—not just this one, which is failing? Is this what it's all about? Its renewables-only policy is turning the lights out. They know it and the minister should own up to it.

Black Friday is nearly here. Let's think about the real cost behind those big sales and the fast deliveries. Amazon, a company making billions of dollars annually, takes advantage of its workforce to maximise its profits. Warehouse staff face gruelling quotas, unsafe conditions and immense pressure to meet deadlines, and they're often unable to take proper breaks. Flex drivers aren't guaranteed the minimum wage or basic rights, while many warehouse workers—hired casually or through labour hire—work close to full-time hours without benefits or job security. Many of these workers live in my community, in Melton, Sunbury or Moorabool.

When workers demand fair pay and safer conditions, Amazon retaliates. The company has faced over 250 complaints in the US for union busting, including surveilling workers and flooding workplaces with new hires to sabotage unionisation efforts. But workers are fighting back. In Australia, the Transport Workers Union and the SDA are joining the global Make Amazon Pay movement. This campaign demands fair wages, safe workplaces, respect for workers rights and accountability for Amazon's environmental and social impacts.

Amazon's relentless drive for profit comes at a very steep human cost. Fair treatment, safe conditions, and decent pay aren't luxuries; they're the bare minimum for working people. This Black Friday, let's remember the workers behind the deals. Every dollar we spend is a choice. Let's make Amazon pay together. (Time expired)

On Sunday a very sad and sorry 18-month saga came to an end with the government's formal abandonment of its shocking misinformation bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. This was one of the worst bills ever put forward by any government of Australia. This was a shocking attack on free speech from a government that wanted to censor the honestly held opinions of Australians. This government wanted to exempt some people, like academics, from its misinformation bill, but not everyday Australians.

The minister went all the way to Brussels to talk about how important this misinformation bill was, to give a speech to European Union bureaucrats. But what about the impact on ordinary Australians? The minister wanted to be able to—believe it or not—personally order misinformation investigations and personally order misinformation hearings here in one of the greatest democracies on earth—an absolute disgrace.

The bill included politics and referendums expressly, and it united just about everyone against it, from the Human Rights Commission to civil liberties groups to the Catholic Bishops Conference to the Shia Muslim community to the Anglican Church to Victorian Bar to Professor Anne Twomey. An extraordinary group of people united against the bill, and they were united because it was a shocking attack on free speech. It was a humiliating backdown. This bill must never be brought back in any form by this government.

Labor is focused on tackling the toughest of challenges, focused on fixing the problems that matter to Australians and focused on getting the job done for our communities. We're focused on building our country up while the angry and divisive Leader of the Opposition has spent every day trying to pull it down. He's angry because Labor is helping everyday Australian workers fight the cost of living. We're doing that by delivering increased wages, by improving workplace laws by closing loopholes and by delivering a tax cut for every single taxpayer in this country. The Liberals want to destroy these benefits for Australian workers by blocking them in this very place. The opposition leader is even angrier that Labor is building a stronger health system for every Australian. As we deliver cheaper medicines and invest in Medicare urgent care clinics and mental health clinics, the Liberals want to make it harder for Aussies to look after themselves by trying to block these changes. The opposition leader is absolutely seething because Labor is making it easier for Australian families to keep a roof over their heads. The Liberals teamed up with One Nation in the Senate this week to try and destroy housing affordability in this country. Led by the angry Leader of the Opposition, the Liberals will always be blockers and knockers to everyday Aussies. The Labor government are focused. We are focused on building Australia's future.

In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.

My question goes to the Prime Minister. The Australian Energy Market Operator is right now scrambling to avoid blackouts by cutting deals with factories to temporarily shut down, and the New South Wales Premier is asking residents 'not to run your dishwasher, not to run your washing machine this afternoon'. Prime Minister, is this what Labor's plan for a 'renewable energy superpower' really will look like?

No, the member for Herbert is now warned. There will be no interjections while a question is being asked—it's deja vu—and no interjections before someone begins answering.

I thank the honourable member for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to update the House on the situation in New South Wales this afternoon. As the House is aware, New South Wales is undergoing a lengthy and severe heat wave, which is, of course, increasing demand on the energy system. It's a statement of fact: when there's a heat wave, energy demand goes up. In addition, in New South Wales there are five units of coal and gas production that are not operating. Two of them were unexpected breakdowns in coal-fired power units. Of course, that has added to pressures in New South Wales.

It is the case that a lack of reserve notice has been issued. This is not an unusual circumstance; this is AEMO doing its job. In fact, in the last quarter of the Morrison government, lack of reserve notices were administered 36 times, and, in the quarter before that, 55 times. As a result of the lack of reserve notice that AEMO have issued, I'm advised that they have secured extra supplies as a result of the situation that is commonly put in place, which is to provide extra supplies. AEMO have advised me that there are enough reserves for New South Wales this afternoon. Of course, they are taking necessary precautions in case there is another unexpected outage of a coal-fired unit, which is always a risk.

AEMO has also advised me that batteries will play a very important role this afternoon in New South Wales. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, during the day they are absorbing energy, and they will be called upon this evening. That is the advice of AEMO. So it would be disingenuous and dishonest to blame renewables when you have five units out, four of them coal, two of them breakdowns. We have not had a day in the last 18 months where there hasn't been a breakdown a coal-fired power unit across the National Energy Market.

The opposition choose to say that they would sweat the assets and rely more on those coal-fired power stations. What we say is that we will continue to roll out renewables and batteries to support this transition. The honourable member referred to a blackout in south-west New South Wales, which was resolved at nine o'clock this morning, which was not load shedding, which was not related to heat, which was not related to energy generation. It was because a transmission line was hit by a storm. The member for Fairfax might want to get better information.

Order! There's far too much noise.

Leader of the Opposition! I am just going to make sure everyone is adhering to the standing orders. There was just far too much noise during that answer. So we're just going to make sure today is a little different. I haven't been happy with the level of noise. It is the last week, and we just have to make sure we are all working together as hard as we can.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what economic conditions did the government inherit, and in what ways is the Albanese Labor government bringing costs down and lifting wages for Australians?

I thank the member for Lingiari for her question. Australians know that inflation is a global challenge and that the surge in energy prices and supply chain issues has affected people and economies worldwide. It's no secret that we inherited some tough circumstances—$1 trillion in debt, wages going backwards, productivity flatlining and inflation with a 'six' in front of it and rising. But we have had a clear plan and we have stuck to it—bringing costs down, getting wages up and getting inflation back to where it should be.

Today, we have made even more progress. Monthly inflation remained at 2.1 per cent compared with the 'six' it had in front of it when we took office. But we are also bringing costs down. Today, we are introducing a bill to ensure that supermarkets face multimillion-dollar penalties for harmful breaches of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, with fines of up to $10 million for price gouging. These are serious penalties, the highest corporate penalties under any industry code. That's because people trying hard to find good prices don't deserve to be ripped off. Shoppers deserve fair prices, not dodgy discounts. Day to day, unfair prices make life hard. Over the course of a year, they really add up. That's why we're cracking down on supermarkets and making sure that the regulators have the teeth that they need to make sure that supermarkets are doing the right thing.

But we are also concerned with getting wages up. Last night, through the Senate, we passed a 15 per cent pay increase for early childhood workers. Importantly, it's tied to keeping fees down for families.

Not real wages.

Real wages are going up.

Order! The Treasurer and the member for Hume can easily take their conversation outside, and I can assist with that if they really want. When there are answers, just restrain yourselves, because I want to hear what the Prime Minister is saying.

The truth is that those opposite really lose it when you speak about paying workers properly. Whether it's aged-care workers, early educators or people on the minimum wage, whenever you speak about rising wages—and we have had real wages increase for four quarters in a row—they start yelling and shouting because they don't like it. We know that early educators shape lives and change lives. We need to do more than just thank them. We need to make sure they are properly valued and fairly paid. This is a win for workers, a win for families and a win for our littlest Australians as well. This government is turning promises into progress. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. After 2½ years of this bad Albanese Labor government, working families have seen their costs of living increase by 18.9 per cent. Food is up 11.8 per cent, housing is up 11.8 per cent and gas is up 32.2 per cent. This Prime Minister is taking our country in the wrong direction. How can Australians possibly afford another three years of Labor?

I'm asked to compare and contrast how Australia has performed over the last 2½ years with what would have happened had we not taken action. Shadow Treasurer, inflation had a six in front of it when we were elected. Now it has a two in front of it.

Government members interjecting—

Order! The member for Deakin, like any other member, is entitled to raise a point of order. No matter where you sit anyone's entitled to raise a point of order, and he's going to be given that opportunity now.

The point of order is on relevance. The Prime Minister has made a habit of recharacterising every question in an entirely different way to the question asked and he should be pulled up for relevance.

That isn't a point of order; that's a comment by the member for Deakin. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition and I have said to others during the week, I'm simply not going to have people get up and say what they feel or what they'd like to say during question time. There are rules to follow and there are standing orders to follow. You're entitled to take a point of order, and I gave you that courtesy, but you didn't show the same respect to the chamber. You simply got up and said that you didn't like how the Prime Minister was answering the question or whatever he was doing, so you're going to leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Deakin then left the chamber.

Opposition members interjecting—

No, we are not going to have that! If people want to make points of order, they will always be given that opportunity to do so. They will be given that out of respect. I ask the same respect to be shown by following the standing orders. Now, if the Prime Minister is going to be asked a broad question about the last 2½ years and all sorts of things, he's going to be pretty broad in his answer. The member for Hume—

The Treasurer is warned. I'm not having this today. We're not going to have this back and forth across the chamber, this freewheeling, okay? I'm going to listen to the Prime Minister. I'm going to make sure he is being directly relevant to the topic he was asked about. He can't go round the world, but I'm going to make sure he's being directly relevant.

Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I'll go directly to cost of living and what we have done and what the alternative would have been. Had we not acted, 84 per cent of taxpayers would be worse off if you compare what we put in place with what they supported. If those opposite had it their way, 2.9 million taxpayers would have not got one cent. Australians who rely upon PBS medicines would be $1 billion worse off because those opposite said no to cheaper medicines. Families would have missed out on more than 900,000 free doctor appointments—sorry to mention the word 'free' because we know what their approach is there—because those opposite said no to Medicare urgent care clinics, not to mention 5.4 million extra bulk-billed appointments thanks to our tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. We'd have 2.6 million award wage workers worse off because those opposite said no to minimum wage increases that we supported.

Millions of households would be $800 worse off because those opposite said no to energy rebates, as would every small business who got those energy rebates as well. Some one million of them would be $650 worse off. More than one million families would be worse off on childcare fees because those opposite said no to cheaper child care. And three million Australians would have worse HECS debts because those opposite said no to HECS relief and have been opposed to it even this week. Half a million Australians would have missed out on free TAFE. They would not just have had to pay if they enrolled in free TAFE but would have missed out on the opportunity of betterment for themselves and their families. And thousands of workers, including Nicole, who I met, would be $34,000—that's for one worker—worse off if we didn't have same job, same pay because those opposite said no to that.

These have been difficult times and we understand that people have been doing it tough. The difference between the government and the opposition is that we've taken measures to assist people. Those opposite have just said no to everything.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government helping relieve cost-of-living pressures for early childhood education workers and families, and are there any other approaches?

I thank the member for Robertson not just for his question but because the member for Robertson understands that early childhood workers provide an essential service. That's exactly why early childhood education is an important priority for the Albanese Labor government. I'm delighted to update the House that the Albanese government's Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 has now passed the Senate, delivering an historic 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood workers right across Australia.

Now, that's good news, but there's more good news, because in 2022 we introduced our changes to the childcare subsidy, making early childhood education more affordable for over one million Australian families, and recent ABS figures confirm for us now that those reforms reduced out-of-pocket expenses for families even more than we originally thought. The corrected data shows that, after the introduction of our reforms in 2022, families' out-of-pocket expenses fell by 17.2 per cent, and average out-of-pocket costs in the June quarter of 2024 remain lower than when the childcare subsidy was first introduced in 2018.

Making early childhood education and care more affordable was just a first step towards our vision of universal early childhood education and care. We know that there is more to do, and we know that a strong and sustainable workforce is fundamental to that work. Today, there are around 30,000 more workers in early childhood education than when we first came into office, and that's in no small measure due to the deliberate actions of this government in creating a pipeline of workers through fee-free TAFE, in supporting professional development and paid practicums, and in our historic wage increase—15 per cent for the sector. Combined with our tax cuts, this wage increase ensures that early childhood workers are not just earning more but also keeping more of what they earn.

I'm asked about alternative approaches, and the Leader of the Opposition continues to dismiss this important wage increase as a one-off sugar hit. Make no mistake: the essential services provided by early childhood educators and workers would be at risk under those opposite, because they don't value early childhood education and care and they don't support higher wages. This government is bringing down the cost of early childhood education and care, and we're raising wages in the sector. That's how you deliver real, meaningful cost-of-living relief to workers and to families. That's what Labor governments do, and that's what this Leader of the Opposition won't do.

I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are recipients of the Australian Olympic Committee Change-Maker medals for 2024. They are students from across Australia who embody the Olympic spirit by demonstrating outstanding leadership in making, through the power of sport, positive impacts in their schools and communities. We also have participants in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade graduate program. Also, I'd like to acknowledge Mr Ian Stewart OAM APM and David Daniels OAM, who are here today with representatives from Crime Stoppers from across Australia. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the year 12 winner from this year's My First Speech competition, Olivia Rose Bradshaw, from the electorate of Casey. Olivia couldn't make it to the House with the other winners, as she was sitting exams, so we're delighted to finally have you with us today. Well done, Olivia.

Treasurer, I made 100 in the backyard at Mum's—treehouses, tyre swings and flashing footballs. Does the Australian dream still exist, or does the reality of crippling debt traumatise young couples? Your last three budgets acknowledged that regulatory burdens have driven house prices beyond affordability. Treasurer, why don't you become a federal government, cut the Gordian knot and wreak Cannae-like destruction upon power-drunk state and local government regulators?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! There was a lot in that question and I'm looking forward to the answer.

It does have a certain appeal. Member for Kennedy, I appreciate the question about young people in particular and I take the opportunity to welcome, as the Speaker did, Olivia. We are pleased you could make it in the end. We hope your exams went well. We assume, if you won that competition then, you probably nailed the exams as well.

Now, when it comes the young people and the beautifully nostalgic Queensland childhood that the member for Kennedy describes in his question, which is a little bit familiar to me—from a couple of generations later—I wanted to say—

Order! I'm hoping for a Christmas miracle. The member for Kennedy, on a point of order?

Mr Speaker, I asked a question about affordability and we had a talk to someone in the gallery and then a reference to his childhood.

The member may resume his seat. The point was on relevance. I thank the member. The Treasurer was just referring to the question he was asked about. You did mention that, so we will give him another go. He has the call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the honourable member for the question. The reason I made that Queensland reference was because I wanted to begin by acknowledging in a very Queensland way that in our economy too often younger people and younger families get the rough end of the pineapple when it comes to the way that some of our policies are set up. That's really the motivation behind so much of what we are doing. Whether it's the way we rewrote the tax cuts, whether it is our Help to Buy scheme that passed the House today, whether it's all the other things we're doing in housing, whether it is our efforts to get wages moving again and strengthen Medicare, all of that, in one way or another, is in recognition and in response to the fact that we do think that young people have had a rough deal for too long. It is also the motivating force behind the changes we are making to student debt. So to acknowledge in the member for Kennedy's question something I agree with, we can always do more to make sure that younger people get a fairer in our economy and in our society, and housing affordability is a big part of that.

The member asked me about the role of the states and the role of the Commonwealth. We have acknowledged—more than acknowledged—and we have taken responsibility for a huge amount of Commonwealth investment in housing. I pay tribute to the housing minister and her predecessor for that $32 billion. That's because we know if we are going to build the homes that we need to make our economy fairer for young people then we need everyone to do their bit and we are doing our bit.

The member for Kennedy asked me about the role of the states. There is a substantial role for the states here, whether it is in regulation or investment or in other ways—and I will be convening the state treasurers on Friday here in Canberra to talk about some of these issues that he raises in his question. But if his question is: is there a role for the Commonwealth, then, yes, we embrace that enthusiastically. If his question is: is there a role for states and state regulators, of course there is. If we are to build the homes we need for the young people to deliver that sense of intergenerational justice that the member asked me about, everybody needs to do their bit. We're doing our bit and the states need to do their bit as well.

My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the Albanese Labor government helping students and easing cost-of-living pressures for early educators?

I thank my friend, the greatest member for Gilmore that we have ever had. Last night we delivered an education trifecta: a 15 per cent pay rise for our early educators, increased funding for public schools and $3 billion in student debt wiped for more than three million Australians. And that 15 per cent pay rise for early educators will start to roll out from this weekend. The extra funding for our public schools will start to roll out in just over a month, and the $3 billion we have wiped from student debt will be done by the ATO over the next few weeks.

Our early educators are some of the most underpaid workers in this country. They don't just change nappies; they change lives, and this pay rise will help to change their lives. This is what it will mean: an extra hundred bucks in their pocket from next week and an extra $5,000 over the next year. We hope it'll encourage more people to want to be early educators. Here's a good sign: Goodstart, the biggest childcare provider in the country, have told us that in the week after they signed up for this pay agreement they've seen an eight per cent increase in the number of job applications, so that's a good start.

The extra funding for public schools will also change lives. It will help us to turn around that decline in the number of people finishing school by tying this funding to real and practical reforms like phonics checks, numeracy checks, evidence based teaching and catch-up tutoring. Wiping $3 billion of HECS debt will change lives too, and it's just the start. If we win the next election, we will cut student debt by a further 20 per cent. To give you an idea about what that means, the change that we made last night will wipe about $1,200 off the average HECS debt, and, if we win the next election, we'll wipe a further $5,500 off the average HECS debt. That'll make a world of difference for a lot of young people just out of uni or just out of TAFE, just out of home and just getting started. This is what only Labor governments do: cut your debt; lift your wages; fund our schools properly; open the door of opportunity; help more young Australians to finish school and then go to TAFE or university; and build a better and fairer education system where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind.

Prime Minister, under the Albanese Labor government Australians' living standards have collapsed by 8.7 per cent. This is worse than the declines seen during the disastrous Whitlam government and the worst in the OECD. New analysis shows that Labor has no plan to restore Australians' standard of living. The Prime Minister is taking our country in the wrong direction. How can Australians possibly afford another three years of Labor?

He's got a lot of nerve asking about incomes, living standards and inflation after the mess that they left us to clean up. If you look right across the board, inflation was higher and rising on their watch, living standards were falling substantially already when we came to office, and real wages were falling substantially when we came to office.

Now, having acknowledged that there was an issue with pressure on living standards, the choice for this parliament over the course of the last 2½ years was to help people with that or to leave them hanging. This side of the House has spent 2½ years with cost-of-living relief as its No. 1 priority, and at every single turn those opposite have voted against that cost-of-living relief. So how dare they come in here and talk about living standards, wages and inflation when inflation was three times higher on their watch; when real wages fell for five consecutive quarters, and now they've grown for four consecutive quarters on our watch; when living standards were falling by 1.7 per cent in the quarter of the election, three times faster than now; when living standards fell 14 quarters on their watch—

The Treasurer will pause. Order! The member for Hume on a point of order.

Relevance, Mr Speaker: there was no 'compare and contrast with the previous government' under that, but you can compare and contrast with the Whitlam government if you like.

Order! The part of the question I'm most interested in was, 'How can Australians afford another three years of Labor?' The Treasurer is disagreeing with that, and he is saying why that is not the case by looking at why he believes the figures that he's quoting—

You don't need to point to anyone. If you're asking a question about that, he's going to contest that and he's going to give evidence as to why he thinks that's wrong. So he is being directly relevant. He's not talking about alternative policies. He's talking about facts and numbers. I'm listening to him carefully, but, if you've got a broad question around the past and the government's record, he's going to defend it—or the Whitlam government. No matter what it is, he's going to defend what he's doing, so he's being directly relevant. He has the call.

The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Moreton then left the chamber.

We're not having those sorts of interjections. The member for Hume is entitled to raise his point of order.

As I understand it, I'm asked about living standards. Living standards are measured by real household disposable income. That was going backwards by 1.7 per cent in the quarter of the election, and, on that measure, living standards fell 14 quarters under those opposite. These are facts. No amount of precooked points of order that somebody has to type out for him in order to make him look spontaneous is going to make up for the fact that living standards were falling when we came to office, real wages were falling when we came to office and inflation was three times higher under them than under us and it was rising fast on their watch.

So the point that I'm making is I'm acknowledging the pressure on people and the pressure on living standards. The choice for the parliament over and over again over the course of the last 2½ years is whether to help people with their cost of living or to ensure that people go further backwards. People would be much worse off were it not for the cost-of-living measures that we have budgeted for three times, and people would be much worse off under those opposite. We know that because they voted against the cost-of-living help. We know that because we know their record of coming after wages and Medicare, coming after housing and all of the things which matter most when it comes to living standards in our community.

This side of the House acknowledges the pressures that people are under and acknowledges that when we came to office people were going backwards. That's why we're getting inflation down, getting wages up, strengthening Medicare and investing in housing, despite the opposition of those opposite.

My question is to the Treasurer. What progress has the Albanese Labor government made in the fight against inflation and to ease cost-of-living pressures? What obstacles are standing in the way?

Thank you to the terrific member for Boothby for her very important question because it goes to the very substantial progress which is made clear by the new monthly inflation figures which were released a couple of hours ago. What those new numbers confirmed was that we have made very substantial, very welcome and very encouraging progress in this fight against inflation.

The fight against inflation has been this government's No. 1 priority. Easing the cost of living where we can do that in the most responsible way, making sure that we're helping people with their energy bills, cutting taxes, cheaper medicines, cheaper early childhood education, getting wages moving again—these are all of the ways that we're helping with the cost of living.

The new inflation numbers today show that inflation for the month was 2.1 per cent, remembering it was 6.1 per cent under those opposite. Monthly inflation is now a third of the 6.1 per cent we inherited. I know that the shadow Treasurer thinks 2.1 last month and 2.1 this month means that it's gone up, but it doesn't mean that. You've got to fact-check everything that the shadow Treasurer says. Somebody will explain this to you later!

What else showed today in the inflation data is that our policies are helping when it comes to household budgets. One of the reasons why there was actually a monthly fall in rent was our Commonwealth rent assistance, which we've talked about. One of the reasons why electricity prices fell 35.6 per cent in the year to October was our energy rebates. So you can see that our policies are making a meaningful difference to the fight against inflation, taking some of this pressure off even at the same time as we recognise that people are still under pretty substantial pressure.

As the Prime Minister said a moment ago, our efforts on supermarkets are part of this as well. The Food and Grocery Code of Conduct is all about making sure we get a fair go for farmers and families. What this shows is that, whether it is our cost-of-living relief or our approach to supermarkets, we are coming at these cost-of-living pressures from every responsible angle that we can.

Now we know from today's numbers that, if those opposite were in power, inflation would be higher and people would be getting less help. We know that from the figures released by the ABS today. We know that Australians are doing it tough. We also know that Australians would be worse off were it not for our efforts to provide cost-of-living help, and we also know from these numbers that Australians would be worse off under the coalition. We know that because they voted against the cost-of-living help, and we know that because we know their record on Medicare, wages, housing and in all of these important areas.

This side of the House is getting inflation down and wages up. We're strengthening Medicare and building more homes. Today's data shows that we're making important progress.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the Albanese Labor government, Australia's living standards have fallen off a cliff. New analysis shows that Australian households will continue to feel the pain of 12 rate rises under Labor for many more years to come, with no relief in sight. The Prime Minister is taking our country in the wrong direction. How can Australians possibly afford another three years of Labor?

I thank the member for Durack for her question. The member for Durack represents a vast electorate, and it has been my pleasure to be there recently in Geraldton talking to the lobster farmers at the co-op, who, because of what we have done on trade and jobs, have a future. That's a direct result of the work that we have done, including with the foreign minister and the trade minister.

The member for Durack asks me about what has happened in the last 2½ years with regard to living standards, and that invites me to talk about the facts. The fact is that, when we came to office, the inflation figure had a six in front of it and was rising. Today's monthly figures show that it's 2.1 and falling. The fact is that the member for Durack was a part, sometimes as a minister, of spending nine years in government creating the problems, but they've spent every day in opposition stopping the solutions or trying to stop the solutions. Their cuts, their waste and their neglect left Australia wide open to global uncertainty, and now they want to go further.

Those opposite want to cut what is helping and punish people who are struggling. They want to claw back the tax cuts that we've delivered, close the Medicare urgent care clinics that we've opened, stop the housing projects that we've started, take away the help with power bills which today's figures show have made a difference and which households deserve, push up the price of medicines that people need, and rip away the pay rises that we have delivered through 'same job, same pay' and through the work with early childhood educators, aged-care workers and people on the minimum wage. They want to rip all that away and derail the progress that we've made on renewables so they can burn hundreds of billions of dollars on some plan to deliver into the 2040s what will be less than four per cent of the energy that Australia needs. When they come in here, all they do is stand in the way and take things away. They only have two settings: 'no' and 'no way'. They are the only settings that they have.

We on this side of the House showed today with Help to Buy that we're about construction; they showed once again that they're about obstruction. That's the difference between the two sides of this chamber. We're building Australia's future; they're blocking the Australian dream. They not only don't support public housing but they don't support people into homeownership either. They certainly don't support rental assistance. They have no way forward for Australia—just more reckless negativity and inaction— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government making the online environment safer for all Australians?

I thank the member for her question. The Albanese government takes seriously its commitment to keeping all Australians safe online. We know that parents are concerned about the harms to children, and we have taken a decision to support them. This House has passed our world-leading legislation for an age limit for access to social media. I thank the members from all sides who joined the government in supporting this vital bill. As I said yesterday, the government is committed to working with young people and other key stakeholders as we implement this legislation.

I also thank the members who have shown an interest in this bill. Some of their statements and proposed amendments pointed to the need for a legislative digital duty of care. Earlier this month, I announced that the Albanese government would do precisely that. The duty of care will deliver a more systemic and preventive approach to making online services safer. It has widespread support, including from the International Justice Mission, ReachOut, the Black Dog Institute, Beyond Blue, the Butterfly foundation and many others. It was an important recommendation from the Online Safety Act review and the report of the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society.

The duty of care will complement the ongoing work across government to help keep all Australians safe online. This includes the Assistant Treasurer delivering important reforms to tackle the financial and economic harms faced by too many Australians as a result of scams. The Attorney-General is leading work to safeguard the privacy of Australians and has legislated to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit deepfakes. As we mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, I acknowledge the work being delivered to help keep women and children safe online. This includes work done by the Minister for Social Services, who has worked with me to deliver a world-leading dating app code to tackle tech facilitated abuse that particularly targets women. The eSafety Commissioner recently launched more grants to develop innovative projects to address the root causes of tech facilitated abuse. The Albanese government has funded the Alannah and Madeline Foundation to make practical resources and learning tools available to all schools across Australia for free to better equip young people to navigate online environments. We know that keeping Australians safe online requires decisive action, and the Albanese government is delivering exactly that.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Professor Andrew Whittaker told the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy:

… I firmly believe that nuclear power should be part of the energy mix in Australia. Energy security is national security … Being part of a global nuclear supply chain … would benefit all Australians …

Why is Labor dismissing world experts in pursuit of a renewables-only policy that is putting our nation's energy security at risk?

I thank the honourable member for his question. I thank him for raising the evidence that's been provided to the committee that is being chaired by the member for Hunter. Now that the member for Flynn has opened that question, it gives me an opportunity to talk about the evidence that the member for Hunter and his colleagues have been hearing, like the evidence from Ontario, which the shadow minister has referred to. It's their poster child for nuclear. It's a province where they say, 'That's the best practice for nuclear.' We've heard evidence from a professor from the university of Ontario who has pointed out that that policy has bankrupted the Hydro One company of Ontario and seen their prices skyrocket compared to the provinces next door. For example, people in Ontario pay more for energy than the people of Quebec next door. Quebec relies a lot more on renewable hydro. That is the evidence that the committee chaired by the member for Hunter has heard.

The member for Fairfax knows this because he sits on that committee. He sits on that committee, so he has heard all the evidence. He has also the evidence from Professor Bill Grace from the University of Western Australia, who has pointed out that the only way to make nuclear power work in Australia is to switch off cheap renewable energy, to stop exporting electricity from rooftop solar systems and forget feed-in tariffs. The system has to call on baseload nuclear power first or the plan makes no sense whatsoever. What Professor Grace has pointed out is that all those Australians who have invested in rooftop solar will have their feed-in tariffs cut and they will be curtailed to make way for nuclear power. That is the evidence that has been heard before the committee.

We have also heard from Sunshine Hydro that the AP1000 nuclear reactor, which is the preferred model of the member for Fairfax, even if it is running at 15 per cent will turn off 75,000 solar rooftops across Australia. Just a couple of weeks ago I was present at Australia's four-millionth installation of rooftop solar. These were Australians who had invested in rooftop solar. The member for Hinkler and Senator Canavan have pointed out that they support curtailing solar. They support rooftop solar being turned off to make room for nuclear energy. So, if we're going to have a discussion about the evidence that has been heard by this committee, we're up for that discussion—

and I'm up for debating the member for Fairfax. Q+A suggested a debate. He said no. 7.30 has suggested a debate. I've said yes. I await the answer of the member for Fairfax.

Honourable members interjecting—

Everyone is just going to settle. And the chamber will come to order so I can hear from the honourable member for Pearce.

My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What do the Albanese Labor government's reforms of the NDIS mean for participants and their families? Are there any other approaches?

I thank the member for Pearce for her question. I'm pleased to inform Australians that since the Albanese government was elected the NDIS is getting back on track. In essence, people with disability have been put back at the centre of the scheme and the financial numbers are actually improving whilst the integrity of the scheme is being maintained. Also, a consensus on the best way forward to keep the scheme on track has emerged, other than with the Greens political party and some senators.

I can demonstrate the metrics of how, in the last 30 months, the scheme is getting back on track. Before we were elected, the scheme was growing in investment outlay by 23 per cent. Last financial year it was 18 per cent. This year we're on track for 12 per cent, and next year it will be eight per cent. Participant growth before we were elected was 15 per cent. Now it's at eight per cent, and many categories have stabilised. When we were elected, the NDIS was in danger of being the only lifeboat in the ocean. The states were contributing 25 per cent of the cost of the scheme, while we were contributing 75 per cent. We've been able to persuade the states to lift their contribution each year, from an extra four per cent growth to eight per cent growth. Most pleasingly, the states have agreed with the Commonwealth to start rolling out, in a year's time, foundational support services so that the scheme is not the only lifeboat in the ocean.

When we came to office, there was rampant fraud. There are now 500 investigations being conducted or underway, and 50 people are in front of the courts. Billions of dollars of payments are now being investigated for their integrity, and I'm pleased to announce today that the Albanese government will be spending an extra $110 million to crack down on fraud.

When we were elected, there was no clarity on what money could be used for. We've now clarified what it can be used for. When we were elected, over 90 per cent of the service providers were simply unregistered. We now have a plan to move forward and register the vast bulk of service providers. When we were elected, people could come into the scheme by all sorts of different assessments. We're going to bring the assessment in house so that there's some consistency and transparency. Before we were elected, you could, when you were fit for discharge, spend 160 days in hospital and on the NDIS before you got out of hospital. Now it's down to 22 days on average.

External legal costs have fallen. The wages that are paid to disability support workers have increased. We recognise there is still more to do. Led by my colleague Amanda Rishworth, we've still got to keep working with the states on these foundational supports. We recognise that there are still integrity issues in the scheme. We recognise that decision-making is still inconsistent in parts.

I will finish where I started. The reality is that this nation made a promise to ageing carers who were up at midnight thinking about whether there would be someone to look after their adult child when they no longer could. The good news is that, because of the Albanese government and the reform in this term, we are closer to keeping that promise than we've ever been before.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Senate inquiry report on aircraft noise is to be released today. At the hearings we heard from communities nationwide how aircraft noise is wrecking their sleep, health and wellbeing. A curfew could help. Why does Sydney have a curfew but residents in Brisbane are left to suffer?

I recognise the member's question in the spirit in which it's asked. We of course do understand that community concerns in relation to the noise impact of aircraft movements on residents in the vicinity of airports, particularly in Sydney airport and Brisbane and across the country. It's an issue we do take seriously. The new runway at Brisbane Airport opened in 2020 following approval by the former coalition government, who did not undertake—frankly—sufficient community consultation in the process, particularly in relation to aircraft noise.

At the last election Labor committed to establish a community advisory board to hear directly from locals and to support development of possible mitigations. Since coming to office, in addition to formally establishing the advisory board, we have implemented a number of measures to reduce the impact of noise including changes to the timing of flights and flight paths to minimise impact on residential areas and we continue to work on additional solutions. I have made very clear my expectation to Airservices that further measures be implemented to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise at Brisbane Airport.

In response to this and to community concerns Airservices has implemented a noise action plan, which is delivering real improvements at that airport. Airservices have limited the ability of some aircraft to take off over land and during the early morning in Brisbane so that propellor planes and turbo props do not operate from the new runway before 6 am. Airservices has also boosted the number of flights that take off and land over water, known as SODPROPS, during the night and early mornings on weekends. Each time SODPROPS is used, 290,000 to 500,000 fewer residents are directly overflown. We have increased the use of SODPROPS and plan to use that mode much more. That is what this government has been doing. We have reinstated the previous flight path over the overwater departures. We have been working with communities in order to do that.

But I'm asked particularly about the Greens' proposal of a curfew at Brisbane Airport. Let's compare what happens at Sydney airport, where movements are capped at 80 movements per hour. It is the busiest airport in the country. What the Greens want is a cap at 46 movements per hour. In Sydney, what that has meant, the 80 movements per hour, is we are now building a second airport because that airport is at capacity. If you are saying that Brisbane Airport is at capacity at 40, you are dreaming.

My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government working to help renters and to help more Australians own their own home? And what obstacles stand in the way?

I want to thank the member for Wills, who is one of the parliament's most tireless advocates for housing. I'm pleased to update the House that our government's Help to Buy legislation has now received the support of both chambers of the parliament and will become law. I want to acknowledge Minister Collins for the really important work she did to bring us to this point.

My first visit as housing minister was to the member for Wills' electorate. We sat with a group of low-income young people and they spoke to us person-to-person about the sense of genuine despair many of them feel about their prospects for homeownership. Help to Buy is a law for them. Help to Buy is a law for Australia's childcare workers, aged-care workers and disability workers, people who need and deserve the help of government, and now they're going to get it.

Help to Buy is a really important part of Labor's bold and ambitious $32 billion housing agenda. This law has received widespread support from around the housing sector and in the community, and indeed from across the parliament. When the House voted just earlier on this really important reform, there was only one group that tried to stand in the way of childcare workers getting homeownership; it was the nasty, negative reckless Liberals and Nationals.

Mr Speaker, you're not going to believe me but, as recently as yesterday, the coalition promised that, if they are given the chance, they will abolish Help to Buy, abolish that support and deny tens of thousands of Australians their aspirations for homeownership. I say to those opposite: good luck convincing the Australian people that you are a party that supports homeownership when you've to come into this parliament, voted against this measure and said and said you'll abolish it if you are elected to government.

It is not too late for the coalition to demonstrate concern for building housing supply. This is a measure that the parliament will soon consider. Labor's build-to-rent legislation is going to come before the Senate shortly. If it is passed it is going to result in the building of 10s of thousands of desperately needed additional homes for our country. It is another bill with really widespread support around the parliament. But what are the coalition going to do? They cannot claim they want more homes built in this country and then vote against this bill. I want to give thanks to the many people in this parliament who have worked constructively with our government on housing policy, for choosing to support opportunities for people who desperately need the help of government to get into homeownership.

This election Australians are going to have a really clear choice on housing between a reckless and arrogant party of pessimism and negativity in the opposition, or a party of progress that is stepping up on housing and helping Australians build, rent and buy.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that core inflation, the Reserve Bank's preferred measure of inflation, went up today?

The fact is that core inflation has come down since we were elected—that is a fact—consistently, all the way through and in the last quarterly figures that were given. Today, one of the things that strikes me is that they are never so unhappy and angry as when things are heading in a good direction for Australians. Their whole position is a-wishing and a-hoping for the very worst for Australia. No hope, just nope to everything that comes before this parliament.

On relevance, Mr Speaker. That question was very specific. It asked about what core inflation did today—confirming that it went up. Is it your ruling that what he was saying, which was completely different from that, was relevant?

The Prime Minister did mention core inflation. So he's going to make sure he's talking about the topic, which is core inflation, not other topics and not alternatives. I hear what you're saying. The Prime Minister won't be able to go too far on this topic, because it was a very tight question. The Prime Minister has the call.

That's why I addressed upfront the issue of core inflation. I pointed out that it was lower than what we inherited. The new numbers today show that monthly inflation is around one-third of what we inherited at the election and around one-quarter of its peak. It's another encouraging sign that our policies are helping to get inflation down.

The member for Casey is warned.

After it was higher and rising under the Liberals. Indeed, in the last quarter when they held office, in March 2022, it was a figure of 2.1 per cent.

The Prime Minister will pause.

Order! We don't need a running commentary. The Manager of Opposition Business on a further point of order.

Mr Speaker, standing order 91(c) states that a member's conduct is disorderly if they wilfully refuse to conform to a standing order. You rightly directed the Prime Minister to come back to the subject of the question, to comply with the relevance requirement, and he is flouting your order, your direction.

I can appreciate the member would like a yes/no answer and he would like a direct response to the—

Opposition members interjecting—

I'm trying to work with the member for Hume here, so work with me. The way the standing orders are written, unless the Prime Minister is being out of order by not addressing the relevance part of the question, it is very difficult for me to make any minister give the answer that you'd like—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! We're just going to deal with this in an orderly way. The Leader of the Opposition, further to the point of order of the Manager of Opposition Business.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I make reference to your earlier remarks and to the remarks you've repeated now, in relation to the essence of the question being in relation to core inflation, that if the Prime Minister makes some reference, even historic, to core inflation that would mean that he was in order. But the essence of this question is about whether the Prime Minister can confirm that core inflation went up today. The operative part, the most important part, of the question is: did core inflation go up today? The Prime Minister is not being relevant to that element. I think that is the question that is before you. If core inflation went up today, which is bad for consumers, that is the question we're asking, and that is the part that we believe the Prime Minister is not being relevant to.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I thank the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister was referring to figures today. When it's a tight question, it's very difficult—

The Treasurer! To assist the House and to get through question time, I ask the Prime Minister to be directly relevant, otherwise we'll have to move to other questions.

I am talking about where core inflation was today and comparing it with what we inherited. I went straight to the question of core inflation when I was asked the question. The fact is that monthly inflation is around a third of what we inherited at the election and around a quarter of its peak. The last quarterly figures show that we are getting things done in the right direction. We are doing that by producing two budget surpluses in a row and by having responsible economic management.

Order! The member for Bowman is warned.

A point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to the order of the House. Just then the Treasurer, after being warned in question time today and being called out by you, was not asked to leave. In fact, no ministers have been asked to leave, I don't believe, in your term of speakership, whereas the member for Deakin and other members on our side are frequently asked to leave without warnings. I ask you, respectfully, to consider that, highlighted by this example of the Treasurer in your ongoing deliberations.

Order! I appreciate the feedback from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is difficult to maintain order in the House when there are continual interjections. I would like to think that, when I do issue warnings, people understand that there are consequences for those actions—as I have done.

The deputy would also like to check about the ministers I have removed from the House during debates and question time. At the conclusion of question time, I think two ministers were removed: the Minister for Regional Development and the Attorney-General. I want to make sure I put things on the record correctly. As I said, I appreciate the feedback. It's always good for the deputy leader to highlight that we shouldn't be interjecting during question time. Particularly, I'll take that on board.

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in infrastructure to get more houses built more quickly? How has this approach been received and are there any risks to this approach?

I thank the excellent member for Hunter for that question. We know that there are many Australians who are wanting to get access to rental properties and they are wanting to own their own homes. It is why this government has been so focused on the cost of living and on getting new homes built right now. We are increasing the supply of homes and have an ambitious goal of 1.2 million houses. We're incentivising states and territories to build more homes through the New Homes Bonus. And today this parliament has passed the Help to Buy legislation, and I want to give credit to the housing minister and her predecessor for the great work on that. I know there is a lot more to do.

We are also using infrastructure to unlock and streamline approvals for new homes. We are investing more than $1.5 billion over the next two years alone to build the infrastructure to bring those houses to market. I'm pleased to report that the Housing Support Program has been very well received by communities around Australia with funding already being delivered to support new housing.

The Wollondilly Shire Council mayor said of their Housing Support Program funding:

With Wollondilly already fastest in the Greater Sydney area for DA approvals, this will make our processes even faster and more accurate …

A Campbelltown City Council representative said of their funding:

This will provide development confidence and enable council to revise development standards including land use, density and building height.

Tasmania's Central Coast Council mayor has said: 'What is unique about this funding is to actually apply for funding to help us do some of the planning work. Often programs are only about delivery and they're only about hard infrastructure, and councils do struggle to come up with the money that it takes to actually do the planning work and the long-term visionary work that actually helps deliver homes.' The Shire of Victoria Plains president said of their housing support program:

This vital funding will help bridge a long-standing gap in regional planning capacity, enabling progress on priority housing projects.

Even the member for Parkes celebrated the Housing Support Program funding action in Dubbo, saying:

This funding will help Council ensure there is an adequate supply of housing to meet future demand.

We know that this funding is critical to local government to actually make sure they can deliver homes, particularly in our regions. Unfortunately, all of that is at risk if the Leader of the Opposition gets his way. In the middle of a long housing crisis, the Leader of the Opposition is committed to cutting $19 billion from housing and has a plan to force councils to raise rates through concessional loans to pay for infrastructure. That will get passed on to every single resident, from the regions to the cities to our suburbs.

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. You announced 6½ weeks ago that the government was committed to legislating a total ban on the use of predictive genetic tests when Australians are attempting to access life insurance products. Despite this promise, genetic discrimination legislation has not been introduced. Assistant Treasurer, when will the genetic discrimination legislation be introduced and what is causing the delay?

I thank the member for North Sydney for her question and acknowledge her genuine and longstanding interest in this issue, particularly before coming into parliament, in her role as the CEO of the McGrath Foundation. I also acknowledge your deep interest in ensuring we can put in place preventative measures to ensure that people with a predisposition to cancers and other preventable diseases have access to the best preventative medicines and procedures.

The government is committed to introducing legislation into parliament to remove the existing provisions, which would allow life insurers to lawfully discriminate against people who have had access to genetic testing and require them to provide that genetic-testing material as a condition of taking out life insurance. It's an important issue and we want to encourage Australians to have access to genetic testing. And can I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister for health for his great work in this area. The government has invested close to $1 billion into research in this area. We want to ensure that Australians have access to all the genetic-testing advantages that would enable them to take control of those dispositions in their life.

While I'm at it, I also want to pay credit to the great work of many members in this House for advocating on this issue. There are people behind me—the member for Macnamara, the member for Boothby, the member for Macarthur and so many others—and people on the crossbench such as the member for Indi and the member for Kooyong who have made very strong representations on this issue. Of course, while I'm at it, I want to pay great tribute to the work of Dr Jane Tiller from Monash University. There wouldn't be a member in this place who hasn't had representations from Dr Jane Tiller.

We are, as I said, committed to introducing legislation into the parliament in this term. There's only a day left in this year; it won't happen this year, but I can confirm to the member for North Sydney that work is underway on this issue. I've also had productive discussions with the Council of Australian Life Insurers, who have committed to ensuring that, prior to legislation coming before this House, they will voluntarily introduce a ban to ensure this material is not used in the way we are all concerned about.

It is important that all Australians have access to these preventative tests and are able to take control of their own health circumstances. We want to ensure that we expand the research into genomic testing, and we're doing that. We want to ensure the barriers to people accessing those are removed. The removal of the existing provisions in the— (Time expired)

My question as to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. After a decade of cuts and neglect, how is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare through urgent care clinics. What threats are there to Medicare and to bulk-billing?

Thank you, Member for Hasluck. Last week, I told the House there were 78 urgent care clinics open. Well, I can inform, in just a week, it's now 82, as of today. We promised 50. There are 82.

Last Friday, the member for Hasluck and I visited the Midland Urgent Care Clinic. We were joined by a hardworking local nurse, Trish Cook, who happened to have worked at that local GP practice earlier. I met Trish earlier this year at a melanoma institute conference when she was presenting her nursing research into the benefits for patients who are receiving chemotherapy at home rather than at a clinic or at a hospital. It was terrific research, and I know that Trish will now do fantastic work as the local Labor candidate for the new Bullwinkle electorate in Western Australia.

The Midland Urgent Care Clinic has already delivered high-quality urgent care for 10,000 local members of the community. The Google reviews are terrific and far too long for me to read out. Across the country, these clinics are making a real difference to hundreds of thousands of Australians who need free urgent care. We know they are also relieving real pressure from hospital emergency departments.

There is more for us to do and to keep doing to strengthen Medicare, but we also know that all that progress on bulk-billing and on free urgent care is under threat at the next election. It's under threat from a shadow Treasurer who continues to describe our investments in Medicare as 'wasteful spending' and who we know will close the urgent care clinics. It's under threat from a Liberal Party who, according to the deputy Liberal leader, has a philosophy that says Australians don't value services unless they pay for them. They don't value free hospitals. They don't value bulk-billed GP visits or free urgent care, apparently. Of course, it's under threat from the Leader of the Opposition, who, as health minister, put the deputy Liberal leader's philosophy into stark practice, trying to make every single Australian pay a fee every time they go to a doctor, trying to make them pay every time they visit the local hospital emergency department and so much else besides.

I haven't been able to find any Google reviews of this man's time as health minister. I'm not sure Google reviews existed at the time, but I have found a poll with a photo of the health minister then, looking much younger and little bit slimmer, as we all did 10 years ago—looking very, very good. Good memories. It says that Peter Dutton was ranked as the worst health minister in 35 years.

Order! I invite the minister not to reflect on members and not to use props.

I'm just reading from this document which says Australian Doctor magazine ranked him the worst health minister in 35 years of Medicare, proving you can't trust the Liberal Party with our health system.

The minister's time has concluded.

I ask that further question be placed on the Notice Paper.

I table documents in accordance with the list circulated to the honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brisbane proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The urgent need for the Government to stop new coal and gas approvals so we can tackle the climate crisis, reduce our emissions, and protect our environment.

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—

The science is clear. Climate pollution from gas, oil and coal is driving more intense and more frequent weather and disasters. We're already experiencing horrible summers of deadly bushfires, flooding and immense heat and humidity. According to reports earlier this month, it's possible that this year we have already passed 1.5 degrees Celsius of human-caused warming; 1.5 degrees was meant to be the limit, and now we have sailed past it. We're in the midst of a climate crisis right now, and we must act urgently. The planet has a very specific and tight deadline for us. We cannot negotiate with that.

Research published this year indicates that Australia was the third-largest exporter of primary fossil fuels behind only Russia and the USA. When we translate this into exported emissions, Australia comes second because of the sheer size of our coal exports. From 1961 to 2023, Australia's fossil fuel exports have been responsible for emitting 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. All this pollution—and for what? It all gets dug up and exported, with fossil fuel giants pocketing huge profits and everyday Australians left to bear the consequences. Successive Labor and coalition governments have failed to adequately tax fossil fuel companies, and the profits of those mining booms have gone offshore. At least countries like Norway have the decency to properly tax their resources sector so citizens have something to show for it. What Australians see in return for our fossil fuel exports are increasingly severe bushfires, floods and heatwaves. We're seeing insurance costs soar, with more and more homes becoming uninsurable altogether. Collectively, Australians are paying $20 billion more today on insurance than we were only 10 years ago.

Government action and inaction have shifted the cost and burden of the climate disaster off fossil fuel companies and directly onto people and communities. Since coming to office, this Labor government has approved 28 new coal and gas projects. This government is also seeking to expand fossil fuels past 2050 as part of their Future Gas Strategy. This strategy will see gas exports soar, exporting billions of tonnes of emissions, which is inconsistent with achieving net zero and completely inconsistent with the science. Emissions would need to decline at an average of 14.5 million tonnes a year to meet Labor's 2030 target, and the steepest cuts would need to occur right now. But, instead, the data shows us that emissions reductions have stalled since Labor came to office.

Approving renewable power generation is great, but we cannot put the fire out while we pour more petrol on it. We need to tackle climate change from all angles, and that means stopping new fossil fuel approvals. Forty per cent of our power grid is already renewables, so we don't need new coal and gas. The public wants stronger action on climate change. Each day we wait is another opportunity for the government to approve more and more fossil fuel projects. Our climate and our wildlife cannot afford further delay. Then, of course, we have the coalition, who may or may not even believe climate change is real. It's still a TBD. They've proposed concepts of a plan for nuclear reactors that would take 15 to 25 years to implement. The reality is our coal-fired power stations are going to close, and we are going to need to implement alternatives much sooner than 15 to 25 years from now. We cannot wait until the last minute. We should be working to the planet's timeline, not to the timeline and profits of fossil fuel companies. Australia is one of the sunniest and windiest countries on earth. Like I said, around 40 per cent of our national energy already comes from renewables. It's the lowest-cost and quickest way of building new energy, and it is the obvious choice.

As we head into the federal election, it is not 'mission accomplished' on climate. Emissions are not going down; they have stalled. Fossil fuel projects are still being approved, and the fossil fuel industry is still being subsidised to the tune of billions of dollars every year. 'Mission accomplished' looks like a decarbonised economy, 100 per cent publicly owned renewable power, greater protections for our environment and biodiversity, and no new fossil fuels, for a start. We owe it to ourselves to be bold, to follow the science and to make sure Australia is not left behind, at the back of the pack, in a decarbonised world. I don't want us to be sitting here in 10 years wishing we had done more when we had the chance. The time is now. We have to do more now.

The Albanese government is delivering the action that Australians rightly expect when it comes to dangerous climate change. It was one of the biggest reasons for the election of the Albanese government and of this parliament in its entirety back in 2022, and responding to that justified expectation was literally the first work that this government got underway with in the second half of 2022. We straightaway increased Australia's commitment under the Paris climate agreement by more than 50 per cent. We had laboured along in this country for years with a pathetic reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. It wasn't informed by the science. The very first thing we did was increase that commitment by more than 50 per cent, with only five or six years to go. We legislated net zero by 2050. We set an ambitious target to achieve 82 per cent renewables by 2030, and we are on track. The member for Brisbane mentioned that we have reached 42 per cent renewables in Australia's grid. What he didn't mention, of course, is that we've only reached that by increasing renewable energy generation by 25 per cent in the first two and a bit years of this government.

In support of all of the measures that we took and that the Australian community rightly expects this government to do in tackling dangerous climate change—which is in the best interests of Australians and is an example of Australia at its best, as we work cooperatively with the global community and with our Pacific family—we have put in place all of the different measures that are required to get us to net zero by 2050 and to get us to that 43 per cent reduction target by 2030. We have introduced the Rewiring the Nation program, with $20 billion to make sure that our grid can accommodate all of that renewable and new storage. We have invested in the Capacity Investment Scheme, which will add 32 gigawatts of renewable energy and storage by 2030 to get to that 82 per cent target. We have a community battery program that's being rolled out around the country. We have the Solar Sunshot program, the Hydrogen Headstart program and the first ever National Electric Vehicle Strategy this country has ever had, making sure that our vehicles are cleaner and cheaper to run and that we reduce pollution in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The first ever National Energy Performance Strategy was released only in April of this year, with $1.7 billion of supportive programs to help households, local governments and small and medium enterprises, with a special focus on housing improvements.

And, in making sure that the entire Australian economy, particularly large emitters, do their work to get us to our 2030 target and to net zero by 2050, of course we reformed the safeguard mechanism, which had operated utterly hopelessly under those opposite, who essentially set benchmarks that increased the headroom for all of those large emitters so that they were effectively under no obligation to reduce their emissions. We changed that. Also, the Minister for the Environment and Water moved quickly to reform the EPBC Act with an expanded and strengthened water trigger. That means that the 200 largest emitters among Australian companies need to be really serious about achieving the emissions reduction that we need—effectively five per cent year on year from those 200 large emitters. That is already beginning to have effect.

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy will deliver the third Annual Climate Change Statement tomorrow. That's yet another reform that we made in coming to government, to ensure that there is visibility, transparency and accountability for the Australian community so they can look at this parliament and this government and say, 'We have an expectation that a sensible, responsible, focused and reformist Australian Labor government will take on the biggest challenge that we have before us: responding to dangerous climate change and making sure that this country actually derives all of the very significant benefits that lie before us through the global energy transformation that is occurring, because of the comparative advantages that we have.' As the member for Brisbane said, we have the best wind and solar resources in the world—a continent-sized nation with parts of the renewable energy spectrum that we have yet to tap.

Under this government, for the first time, we have offshore wind zones, which the coalition never explored. That gives us an opportunity to spread the diurnal range in which renewable energy is supplied, building on the large-scale and household solar that's already delivered. Added to that is hydropower, new pumped hydro, concentrated solar, battery technology and green hydrogen—all of those things that we are very well placed to take advantage of, because of the size of the continent, because of the renewable energy resources, because we've got a skilled and educated workforce, because we have a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship right through our economy. That is the work that this government has done.

Already, in just a bit more than two years, the change that Australia voted for, the change that Australians want to see—particularly young Australians—is becoming real, including an increase in renewable energy generation of 25 per cent. We are on track to achieve our 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030. The minister for energy noted today that in the week before last we crossed the four-million-household mark, in terms of installed solar PV capacity.

We have become the highest penetration solar PV nation in the world. That started with the former Labor government. When we came to government in 2007, there were only 12,000 households that had solar PV—effectively one in a thousand—and now it is one in three. In my home state of Western Australia it is two in five. That is what started under the Rudd-Gillard government. That is what is continuing under the Albanese government, because we know climate change is real and we know that we need to be part of mitigating the impacts of climate change here for our own sake but also for the sake of our Pacific family and to be part of sensible, cooperative global action.

The environment minister has approved, in the term of this government, more than 65 renewable projects. We have the largest pipeline of investment in green hydrogen in the world. All of those things, which people should look at and take heart from, have been delivered in a little bit more than 2½ years. It is not 'mission accomplished', as the member for Brisbane says. We have never ever taken than approach. We've taken the approach that there is no time to waste, and we're going to continue to make positive change when it comes to climate change and the energy transition—every single week of this government, every month and every year. We've done that from the very beginning. We've continued that right up until the last month or so, and it will continue over the course of this summer and into next year, when, of course, Australians will have a choice. The choice is a very clear one: Do Australians want this country to be on its best path, to be on the path that suits our best interests and represents our best character? Do they want Australia to continue on the path of sensible, focused, sustained, collaborative, effective climate change action which we need to make sure that we don't suffer the worst effects of climate change? We need to make sure that we don't experience those not only in terms of our environment and our social and economic wellbeing but also to make sure that we don't miss out on all of the many opportunities that are being taken up around the world as the planet goes through an energy transition.

We know that there needs to be more renewables and storage. We're already delivering that, and we will continue to see that grow as time goes ahead. We know that, as part of the response to climate change, hydrocarbons need to decrease. We know that the days of fossil fuels are numbered as a result of the energy transformation that's occurring. But, while we do all of those things in a sensible, responsible, sustained and focused way here in Australia, we'll continue to be a responsible energy partner for countries in our region as they go through their transition in their own way. If you think about a country like Singapore, which is 700-square kilometres, probably three times larger than my electorate of Fremantle, with five or six million people, they are at five per cent renewables. They have a challenge to increase their proportion of renewable energy with a country of that land mass. They're making those efforts. They're adding new cables to have the benefit of renewable energy projects in other parts of South-East Asia. Of course, we have a proposal like that to support them as well.

There's one thing that people need to know, young people in particular. Australians made a clear choice in the middle of 2022. They said: 'We don't want this science-free climate-change-denialist madness to continue. We don't want to suffer the consequences of that. We don't want to miss out on the opportunities that come from a responsible approach to this issue.' They chose this parliament, and they chose this Albanese Labor government. From the very beginning, we have acted. Ever since, we have made massive and significant changes to ensure that we are on the right track when it comes to emissions reduction and that we're on the right track when it comes to renewable energy generation.

I thank the member for Brisbane for raising this matter of public importance because, while the federal government seems unsure, the public is in no doubt that urgent action to address the climate crisis and to protect our environment is undoubtedly a matter of the greatest importance. Indeed, for Australians, it's increasingly clear that we're facing a climate and extinction crisis. In fact, all it takes to experience the climate crisis these days is to walk out the front door, which is to say that many of us now have already lived through climate change induced extreme weather events. For instance, there's been the millennium drought, the Dunalley fires in Tasmania and the Black Summer fires. Moreover, there's been the increasingly intense cyclones, floods and storms. Indeed, some 84 per cent of Australians say they've been directly affected by at least one climate fuelled disaster since 2019.

It's not just us personally facing the effects of climate change. Nature itself is being hammered even harder, with Australia in particular becoming a global hotspot for extinctions as the changing climate inflicts terrible harm both directly and indirectly. Frankly, it should be a source of great shame for the major parties that more mammal species have become extinct in Australia than on any other continent on earth. This harm is being compounded by our weak environmental laws which have allowed some 7.7 million hectares of bush and forest, an area roughly the size of Ireland, to be cleared in the last 25 years or so. To stop this decline and to reverse these trends we need governments to act with urgency. But the reality is that while the federal government has made some steps forward on environmental law reform, sadly they've moved far too slowly and kicked almost all of the hard work out into the long grass.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the appalling continued support and approval of new coal and gas projects, because both major parties are hooked on fossil fuels. It seems that nothing can dampen their enthusiasm for digging up and selling more, no matter what scientific evidence is presented to them. In fact, in 2023 Australia exported 1.15 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. This is more than ever before, making us one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels in the world. In fact, we're currently third behind Russia and the United States, and that, undeniably, is a shameful position to be in. That's not even mentioning our domestic emissions which, excluding the dodgy accounting trick of including land use changes, have barely budged in over a decade which means we still have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world.

What are we doing here? How could governments have let this happen? Well, they know that electoral donations reform was last week's topic. But does anyone genuinely think that government inaction doesn't have something to do with the fact that almost $2 million worth of donations by fossil fuel interests poured into the coffers of the Labor, Liberal and National parties just last year. Of course, it does have something to do with the government's dreadful policy position. Considering that last year was a non-election year, brace yourself for all the dirty money that's set to pour into the polluting parties over the next little while in the run-up to the election. It's best I repeat that stunning fact for the benefit of anyone who didn't quite catch it: last year, in financial year 2022-23, the Liberal, National and Labor parties accepted some $2 million from fossil fuel companies and interests. That's appalling, though hardly surprising because time and time again we've seen this government and its predecessors kowtow to big corporations and powerful vested interests. Well, I say it's way beyond time the government grew a backbone, stood up to the fossil fuel lobby and started making policy in the public interest, because we simply can't have our environment, climate and energy policies dictated by the fossil fuel companies.

Australians are crying out for urgency on the government's long-delayed reforms so Australia can stop bulldozing the bush, better fund environmental management and repair, stop propping up climate-wrecking fossil fuels and instead harness our rich renewable-energy resources to power a green economy. To keep ignoring all of this is for the Labor, Liberal and National parties to keep treating the community and the environment with contempt.

I'm really pleased to have the opportunity today to speak in this matter of public importance and highlight the Albanese Labor government's achievements in protecting our environment and combating climate change, because these are critically important issues. I've been so proud of the action we have taken on these things since coming to government. Our achievements demonstrate our commitment to leaving Australia and the world in a better state for future generations than when we came into government.

It's a great honour to follow, today, the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who has just been with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy at COP, representing Australia there. I want to commend our leadership team for the vision that they have delivered and the transformative reforms that we've seen in this parliament and the even more ambitious policies on the horizon.

Under this Labor government, Australia is undergoing an energy revolution. This year alone, 42 per cent of our power will come from renewable energy, and, by 2030, 82 per cent of our energy grid will be made of renewables. We had great news today: because of our actions, our legislated target of a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 is on track to be met. And these are not just numbers. They represent a cleaner, greener Australia than what we inherited two years ago when we came to government.

For the Greens and others, it's politically convenient to make out that we are not having these achievements as a government and to downplay what we have achieved. But we came to government after 10 years of complete inaction from the coalition. As the member for Brisbane said, we're not even sure if they actually believe in climate change or not. It suits them to make out that we're not doing enough, when we are delivering incredibly ambitious action on climate change and we are actually getting it done. It actually requires governments to do that. It's not about giving speeches. It's not about just what you say. You have to actually have a plan to deliver these things and you have to work it get it done. And that's what we have been doing since coming to government in 2022, and I am very proud of what we have so far achieved.

As the member for Canberra—a community that is deeply engaged on this issue and understands the importance of urgent and ambitious action on climate—I will always advocate for us to take the strongest action that we can, and I have done so. Last term we were in opposition, and it was just mind-blowing to be in here making a case for climate action, when the previous government seemed to be doing nothing in the face of this crisis. It's been a big change from that to being in government, being able to talk about the things that we are doing, and seeing Minister Bowen fighting for these things and actually going beyond the things that we first promised, delivering ambitious actions, in many ways, that are helping to set up Australia and the world for a better future.

Under this government, 65 renewable energy projects have been green-lit in just over two years. That is enough power to run seven million homes. And we have another 130 projects in the pipeline.

This government is not just talking about climate action. We are taking decisive steps to protect our environment. For the first time in Australia's history, under the Minister for the Environment and Water, this government has refused a coalmine project, prioritising the preservation of our environment over short-term profits. The government is acting to protect our environment and against climate change in every way.

This energy transformation isn't happening overnight, but it is happening a lot quicker because of the actions of our government. We're making up for a lost decade of inaction under the coalition and we've accomplished far more in our first term than the previous government did in three. We've legislated strong new climate laws that compel big polluters to reduce emissions by 200 million tonnes by 2030. That's the equivalent of removing two-thirds of the cars from Australian roads.

These are things that the Greens won't talk about. It's not convenient for them to acknowledge that we are really making gains in this space. We are actually delivering things because that is what Labor governments do. We are the party of the environment. We are the party that will always protect our natural environment and is taking the action we need on climate change.

I, too, would like to thank the member for Brisbane for bringing this matter of public importance to the House. This year, thousands of homes in Sydney's west experienced blackouts, with 2,785 customers impacted by over 180 power outages recorded, as reported by Endeavour Energy. These outages are under investigation.

My community in Fowler and across Western Sydney will feel the heat this summer not just from the rising temperatures but also from the rising costs of staying cool. Many families will turn on the air conditioning or fans to cope, while others will simply go without. What is this government doing to ensure they aren't also feeling the heat of soaring energy costs?

The cost of living, with energy at its core, is the most pressing issue for Australians. Energy affects every household and business in this country. Our current, chaotic energy market demands urgent reform. Energy pricing today feels like a lottery. On Monday, the spot price is low; by Wednesday, it's sky high; and by Thursday, it's in the negatives. Retailers use this unpredictability to justify price hikes, creating instability that costs Australians dearly. How can families budget or businesses plan when the energy market operates in such chaos?

Since my election, I have repeatedly asked the government what it will do to bring down electricity prices and provide certainty for consumers. In August, I asked what fundamental changes it would make to the broken electricity market. Well, it seems the government listened and took action, with the news that an energy expert panel will be appointed to study the situation and make recommendations. That's all well and good, but what about now? How can this assist us right now, when the panel is asked to report back only in 12 months? This problem cannot wait another year longer. This government has had 30 months to act.

Australia is a world leader in solar adoption, with over four million systems installed since 2006, yet, while solar has surged, planning has not. Why hasn't the government acted sooner to plan for storage of excess solar energy generated in the middle of the day? Our energy distributors, regulators and policy makers have failed to create a grid that is fit for purpose. Why didn't we mandate that every large-scale solar farm include a battery? Instead, we have a system where solar system homeowners are penalised for exporting energy while consumers pay record-high bills due to poor planning.

Even without being an energy expert, I see simple, overlooked solutions. Why not introduce an ultra-low daytime tariff to encourage consumers to charge electric hot water systems and EVs during the midday solar glut? Why cling to outdated night-time tariffs, when solar overproduction peaks between 10 am and 3 pm? Such measures could help alleviate the risk of blackouts. Our outdated energy infrastructure is woefully inefficient. Upgrading it with smart technology and storage solutions is essential to reduce waste and make the renewable energy dispatchable. Such improvements would enhance reliability and provide consumers with a chance at lower power costs.

Transparency in the energy market must also improve. Energy providers must operate fairly, and regulations must protect consumers from price gouging and unfair practices. Vulnerable groups, like low-income households in Fowler, need safeguarding. Encouraging competition away from large generators and retailers can lower prices and improve services for all Australians.

While transitioning to renewables is vital, we cannot ignore the role of traditional energy sources like coal and gas during this transition. Disregarding their importance risks economic shocks and further price instability. A balanced approach that leverages all resources, while phasing out the most harmful practices, is essential to protect both the economy and the environment.

Communities like Fowler are paying the price for decades of poor planning and leadership. Australians want practical, affordable solutions, not empty slogans. We must engage with communities to ensure energy policies reflect their needs and provide clear benefits.

High energy costs hurt everyone. They slash disposable incomes, inflate living expenses and deepen economic hardships. Energy policy cannot exist in isolation. It affects every aspect of our lives and economy. The rising cost of energy demands immediate and multifaceted action. This government is not moving in the right direction on infrastructure for Fowler. This government is not moving in the right direction on health funding for Fowler. This government is not moving in the right direction for small and medium sized businesses in Fowler. They are certainly not moving in the right direction for energy costs for Fowler and dealing with our energy crisis.

Our government is committed to northern Australia, committed to net zero and committed to becoming a renewable energy superpower. Australia is lucky, of course, to be one of the sunniest places in the world, with some of the best solar and wind opportunities that exist on the planet. Our government, the Albanese government, is harnessing those opportunities and executing the lowest-cost pathway to a clean, affordable, reliable and resilient energy system. Our reliable renewables plan is the only plan that is backed by experts to deliver clean, affordable, reliable and renewable energy, when and where it is needed, firmed with batteries and storage, and gas when needed during times of high demand.

Labor's plans to become a renewable energy superpower are well underway, with a 25 per cent increase in two years in our national grid in the cheapest and cleanest form of new generation renewable energy. These are facts that the Greens political party and others like to forget, but it is the reality. Since the Albanese government came to power in May 2022, 13 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity has entered the grid.

When it comes to Middle Arm, the north is playing a critical role in supporting the nation's transition to a net zero economy, developing the critical minerals industry, implementing the government's national defence strategy and closing the gap on First Nations disadvantage. The Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct will play a key role in the transition to a net zero economy. Again, the Greens political party and others want to pretend that it doesn't. They want to say it is all about gas and fossil fuels. In fact, they won't even take briefings on Middle Arm, because they don't want to hear from the critical minerals company and renewable energy companies like SunCable that they really think Middle Arm is essential—'vital' is what they say. So, of course, the Greens do not want to be briefed on that. It does not fit their narrative.

SunCable and other companies are set to harness the Northern Territory's world-class solar resource driving green energy—or, as I've said before, I prefer to talk about it as 'golden green energy', because it is coming from the sun and it is electricity that is going to pump into Darwin, firing up green industries and also into the region, helping them with their renewable energy targets at the same time.

This will drive a new wave of green industrial development at Middle Arm and beyond. As I have said, these new green industries, powered by golden power include critical minerals processing, hydrogen, ammonia, sustainable aviation fuels and data centres. Of course, the Greens political party like to pretend, as I said, that it has nothing to do with our renewable energy future. They would rather go and hire some quite expensive inflatable kayaks and go and stop coal exports from getting out of Newcastle Harbour, but it's all performative. There are hardworking people who work in that industry in Newcastle.

The Greens member has asked up here. It is performative. It is always performative with them. It is not about the real business of government. The real business of government is actually delivering a renewable energy future—transitioning and looking after workers, making sure there is a just transition. But, no, they get in the kayaks and head out into the harbour and pretend they are doing something worthwhile. Territorians and Australians know better, and I am sure the working people of the Hunter absolutely know better. Our regional neighbours know better as well. Our kids' futures lie with the renewable energy revolution and the Territory is at the forefront of that future. What is going to help us get there and help other trading partners of ours get there is us having a sensible plan for the future as part of global efforts.

Now, when it comes to renewable energy approvals, our government has ticked off 65 renewable energy projects since coming to office—and I can't wait to hear about that from the Greens member—the country's biggest-ever renewable energy project in the Territory that we are incredibly proud of, as well as new wind farms, massive new solar farms in Queensland, and in Victoria a massive battery system, to name a few. We're trying to make up for a decade of wasted time but we are not wasting a minute.

The science and experts are clear. If we want to stop devastating and catastrophic climate change, we cannot open any new coal and gas projects. It is what the International Energy Agency says, it is what IPCC climate scientists say and it is what experts around the world say. It is devastating and genuinely difficult to understand how members in this place can get up and pretend like this government is taking climate change seriously when this government has approved in this term of government—and wait for this—28 new coal and gas projects.

Australia is the second-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world behind only Russia and ahead of the United States. That alone should be deeply shameful for a country that will face devastating consequences as a result of climate inaction—devastating. We have already experienced them. In my hometown of Brisbane, in the space of just over a decade, we have faced two one-in-100-year floods. I remember going into people's devastated homes, their lives destroyed, and one of the things I thought about is that here in parliament we have two political parties—Labor and the Liberals—who have been utterly captured by the interests of coal and gas corporations. They wield enormous power over our political system.

It is not just the millions of dollars in donations that coal and gas corporations make to the two major parties. It is not just that Labor and Liberal resource ministers in the past have gone on to work for the coal, oil and gas industries—before and after their jobs, by the way. It is not just that this government time and time again sings the tune of corporations like Santos and Woodside. But even though Australia is a massive exporter of coal and gas, this country gets a fraction of that revenue in tax—a fraction. It is remarkable that corporations like Santos and Woodside sometimes pay less tax than a nurse. When you look around the world at countries like Norway that get about 60 per cent of taxation revenue from their oil industry and then you look at Australia and it is somewhere closer to nine per cent. Nurses pay a higher tax rate than coal and gas corporations in Australia. That alone should be deeply shameful when we are in a cost-of-living crisis.

But let's think about the consequences for a second, such as the devastating floods and heatwaves that disproportionately affect the elderly and vulnerable. In the future their lives will be lost as a result of climate-driven natural disasters, which are hardly natural because they are driven by financial interests in coal, oil and gas corporations that wield enormous power over our political system.

It is hard because we speak—

It's hard!

We hear the mocking over there. We are honestly getting sick of this. He is a Labor MP, by the way, who was just mocking me and laughing about that. It demonstrates the fundamental disconnect between this political institution and ordinary people out in the world. Because when you think about the consequences of climate change, whether it is lives lost in coal or oil and gas-driven natural disasters, whether it is devastating heatwaves, whether it is sea level rises destroying Pacific communities, whether it is the vulnerable Australians who will be hit first by this climate disaster, that is not something to mock and laugh about. That's something to take seriously. You might find that you disagree with the Greens about a bunch of things, but then go and ask all the climate scientists who say we can't open new coal and gas projects. We would be willing to work with you and discuss a reasonable pathway to phase out existing coal and gas. But, at the very least, let's agree that we can't open more of them and then hand over more billions of dollars to coal, oil and gas corporations.

Listen to that passion! Where's that passion for the people who are having their lives destroyed by climate change? Where's the passion for the people who will be destroyed as a result of your party's subservience to fossil fuel corporations? (Time expired)

Order! This is a very timely reminder for everybody interjecting. I'd like to think that we might have a bit of respect in listening to the different points of view. We can do that. We can have a robust discussion without breaking standing orders.

The Albanese Labor government is doing more than ever to protect our environment, reduce emissions and tackle climate change. We are protecting more of our natural world, fixing more of what's been damaged and working hard to care for the places that we love. When I ran for parliament nearly three years ago, I ran with three core beliefs: I care about people, I care about jobs and I care about the planet. I am so proud to belong to a government that shares these values and has worked day in and day out to move our country forward.

For nearly 10 years, we saw the detrimental effect of what successive coalition governments had done—or failed to do—to combat climate change. They took the country backwards. In the decade that they were in government, the energy industry announced that 24 of 28 coal-fired power stations would close within a decade. They had no plans for what would be replacing their electricity and no plans to help the huge workforces supporting these power stations as they transitioned.

When it comes to powering Australia, nothing will beat our sun and wind. Reliable renewables are the cheapest source of power, and we have them in abundance in Australia. Steel production has always been at the heart of the Illawarra's identity, but with a global shift towards net zero BlueScope are working tirelessly to reduce their carbon footprint and adapting their practices to help Australia achieve our target by 2050.

We still want to maintain the capability of producing good Australian steel in the Illawarra. We know producing steel and powering homes and businesses takes a lot of energy. Producing green steel using low-emissions technology will take even more energy. The Albanese Labor government has a plan that is supported by experts to deliver clean, cheap and reliable energy to all Australians. In just 2½ years we have already delivered a 25 per cent increase of renewables in the grid through 64 different renewable energy projects, which is enough to power more than three million homes. To reduce our emissions, the Albanese Labor government's safeguard mechanism is reducing climate pollution at Australia's largest industrial facilities and, by 2030, it will have worked to slash climate pollution by 200 million tonnes. That's the equivalent of taking two-thirds of the nation's cars off the road over the same period.

While the country continues to progress reliable renewable projects, the Illawarra is charging ahead and is on the cusp of becoming an industry leader in clean energy and manufacturing. With the declaration of the renewable energy zone, we have attracted over $43 billion in potential investments across 44 projects, including wind, solar, energy storage, hydrogen production and green steel manufacturing. The announcement of the REZ paved the way for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to officially declare the Illawarra offshore wind zone on 15 June this year. The zone highlights our region's ideal conditions for harnessing wind power and the ability to provide the infrastructure and workforce needed for such a groundbreaking project. The Illawarra is a region of innovation in manufacturing, with the steelworks and local associated industries still providing secure, well-paying jobs for the Illawarra. Offshore wind projects could provide an additional 1,740 jobs during construction and 870 ongoing, secure, well-paying jobs in our local community.

We won't only be creating jobs; we will be giving our engineering and science graduates from the University of Wollongong the chance to find a job in their home town. The steelworks currently use 750,000 megawatt hours of grid supplied electricity across the steelworks each year. This equates to the usage of about 150,000 households. For context, in Wollongong we have approximately 130,000 households. To make green steel, BlueScope estimates that they will need 15 times the current amount of electricity that they use in traditional steelmaking. Not only does our offshore wind project support so many jobs but it also supports the jobs that already exist as part of the Illawarra's vital industrial base.

We remain committed to driving forward projects that will reduce emissions, create jobs and safeguard our environment. In the Illawarra, local industries have already embraced cleaner technologies and they are helping to position our region as a leader in the clean economy. We have achieved so much in the short amount of time that we have been in office, but there is still so much work to be done. Building the Australia that we envisage cannot happen overnight. This requires hard decisions, long-term planning, dedication and significant investment in the regions driving our economic future.

I thank the member for Brisbane for bringing this matter of public importance to the House, and it is a matter of deep public importance. There are three reasons why we need to open up new coal and gas: none, none and none—there are no reasons to open up new coal and gas. We already generate 40 per cent of our electricity from renewables. We have the technology. The support is also there. Seventy per cent of people in renewable energy zones back projects in their communities. Almost 90 per cent of gas produced in Australia isn't even used here. We send it overseas and we barely tax it. We've got enough coal and gas currently in production to last us until we scale renewable alternatives.

More and more of the jobs in these sectors are being automated right out of existence. Renewables are among the cheapest sources of energy, and things like storage technology are improving every year. So, no, there are no reasons to open new coal and gas, but there are very good reasons to stop. We've just seen a heatwave rip through half the country, the UK drowning under Storm Bert and Florida smashed by Hurricane Helene. The climate crisis is here right now, and, instead of putting out the fire, Labor pours petrol on it, approving 28 new coal and gas projects.

If we stay on this path, by 2035, Australia—home to just 0.3 per cent of the world's population—will have consumed nine per cent of the remaining global carbon budget. It's been interesting this afternoon listening to the assistant minister's laundry list of renewable projects. That is all cancelled out completely by the approval of new coal and gas.

The LNP are peddling an expensive nuclear fantasy. Nuclear power is no solution to the climate crisis. In fact, it's a distraction. It distracts us in critical decades and actually entrenches our reliance on coal and gas. In the absolute best-case timeline, we wouldn't have a single nuclear reactor built until after 2040. In the meantime, the demand for energy continues and grows. If we don't have the base-load renewables needed, guess what is filling that gap? Coal and gas. Here's what the LNP won't say: every nuclear plant locks us in to decades of emissions. That's not a climate solution. It's a trap.

Here in Australia, as previous speakers have mentioned, we have some of the best renewable energy resources in the world. We are ripe to be a clean energy superpower, creating jobs and cutting emissions, but the LNP, backed by millions of dollars from the fossil fuel industry, are trying to sell a nuclear myth and fantasy that simply does not stack up to scrutiny. Why? Because it keeps their mates in coal and gas in business. It's a revolving door between the old parties and the fossil fuel industry. The planet burns, and they actually cash in—state capture by our fossil fuel corporations.

How does politics work in Australia? According to the official register, there are three lobbyists for every one politician in Canberra. A staggering number of these lobbyists are former politicians, former ministerial staffers or former public servants. Every single resources minister in coalition and Labor governments since 2001 has gone on to work in the fossil fuel sector. Not to drill wells or drive trucks, mind you. They become head lobbyists, leveraging their connections to drive the interests of coal and gas multinationals. We see them in the corridors here every day.

So how does politics work in Australia? Over the last 10 years Labor and the LNP have received $26 million in donations from energy and resource companies. See the link? Both major parties sell subscriptions to business forums where big corporations can buy special access to ministers. Who are the members? Woodside Energy, Santos and the Minerals Council of Australia. Meanwhile ministers get chartered flights and gifts from big fossil fuel companies, and this is legal.

So how does politics work in Australia? How does it work? Coal and gas corporations get approval after approval, subsidy after subsidy and tax break after tax break. This is fundamentally about integrity in politics, but integrity doesn't go far enough. We have a structure that gives—this is a fact—big coal and gas corporations more influence than voters could ever dream of having, and that's got to change. (Time expired)

I have sat here and listened to the members of the Greens political party in particular talk about the actions of this Albanese government. You would think that they're living in a complete fantasy land where none of the achievements we have delivered on taking climate action have happened at all. They never mention the 65 renewable energy projects that we've approved. They never mention the renewable energy targets that we've put in place. They never mention any of that. As the member for Canberra said, it's all for politics—just like with housing and just like economic matters, they play politics. We'll see how they go with that at the next election.

Today I welcome the opportunity from the member for Brisbane to talk about this particular matter of public importance. He wants to debate what action the government is taking to tackle the climate crisis, what action we're taking to reduce our emissions and what action we're taking to protect our environment. I welcome that debate, because it gives us the opportunity to talk about the things that the Greens don't. It gives us the opportunity to talk about what we were elected to do.

I was elected, in Bennelong of all places, because people in Bennelong and across the nation wanted their new government to take climate change seriously, and it's because we're all living through it now. This crisis isn't distant or abstract. It is here. It's impacting our communities, it's impacting our economy and it's impacting our very way of life. From bushfires to floods, Australians know the reality of climate change all too well. So, yes, people in Bennelong care deeply about the environment and they care deeply about climate action. They want their children to grow up in a world where our unique ecosystems are protected, where clean energy powers our homes and where we seize the opportunities of an emissions-free economy. Under this government we're delivering just that. From legislating emissions reductions targets to backing in renewable energy, we have hit the ground running. But make no mistake, there is still so much more to do. Let me be clear to this House and to people in Bennelong, I will not stop pushing this government for stronger climate action. We must continue to take action and we should go further, because the stakes couldn't be higher.

The science is clear: without action, global warming will exceed thresholds, leading to more frequent and severe disasters. The cost of inaction won't just be measured in emissions but in lost dollars, lost opportunities and a diminished future for our children. We know that it certainly won't be a Liberal government that will take this threat seriously.

Madame Speaker, can I ask the member about the sacked 50,000 coal jobs?

No. The member for Kennedy needs to be silent now.

It will only be a Labor government that will continue to take action. Let's look at our record in the last 2½ years, noting that the Liberals wasted nearly a decade preceding it. We legislated Australia's first emissions reduction target: 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. These targets are giving Australians certainty, driving investments and delivering tangible progress. Just this week we see media reports that we're on track to meet these targets, which shows that our policies are working.

Because of our policies, Australia is now a top-10 worldwide destination for renewables investment, and it's showing. In 2½ years, renewable energy in our national grid has increased by 25 per cent, with 13 gigawatts of capacity added. The latest Clean Energy Regulator report shows renewable energy generation will average 42 per cent this year, and it doesn't end there. We've approved over 65 renewable energy projects. That's more than 10 times the number of fossil fuel approvals. These projects will power over seven million Australian homes, and they include some of the largest renewable energy projects in the world: projects in the Northern Territory, wind farms in Queensland mining regions, and one of the world's largest battery systems in Victoria. Each of these projects brings us to our other target, 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, which will help us get cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy.

By investing in renewables, cutting emissions and building energy systems, we're not only protecting our environment but securing our prosperity for decades to come. But, to stay on that path, we need to remain steadfast. If we want ongoing progress on renewable energy and climate action, Australia cannot risk a Liberal government in 2025 and beyond. Their record is clear. They'll repeal what we've done. They'll tear down the progress. They'll dismantle everything, just as they've done in the past. There's only one choice come election day.

Turning an economy around is hard. Everyone who benefits from the way it is now fights the change. I know there are serious headwinds when it comes to shifting away from coal and gas to the energy sources and industries of the future. With coal, the writing is on the wall. It's on the way out. With gas, it's more complicated. Unfortunately, we still need some of it during transition.

But there are four facts that it's hard to argue with. Firstly, climate change is happening fast. Burning fossil fuels increases global temperatures. We're seeing it now, and most forecasts are being exceeded. Secondly, the world is trying to get off the stuff that we're selling. Most countries have committed to a net zero timeline at some stage. The best minds in the world are working out how to get off fossil fuels. We can argue about when exactly the tipping point is, but energy economics and public attitudes are changing, and at some stage we will end up with stranded fossil fuel assets. Thirdly, it's likely there will be some gas in the energy mix until 2050, but as little as possible. Gas is currently a useful peaking fuel until something better comes along. There are other solutions, like biogas and various storage methods. This shouldn't be a licence to approve 50-year gas project expansions or new exploration sites that won't be developed for 10 years. And, fourthly, Australia—WA specifically—has a lot to gain if we're bold about this transition. The scale of both the risk and the opportunity is hard to contemplate. In WA, we built a pipeline to Kalgoorlie that unleashed the gold rush in 1903, and the vast North West Shelf infrastructure got the go-ahead in the 1960s. We need to be thinking on that scale now about what's next. In a decarbonising world, WA has many new-energy advantages: sun, wind, land and critical minerals. We're a trusted ally. We have stable politics, a skilled workforce and a track record in big projects.

Given these four facts, how do we set up now for prosperity and employment for generations to come? Instead of coal and gas, I want to talk about a huge opportunity for Australia and WA: green metals. Processing metals is very energy and carbon intensive. The production of steel alone generates seven to nine per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and up to 10 or 11 per cent of CO2. Half the world's iron ore is from Australia. Staggeringly, using zero-emissions energy to process our ore into iron would cut three per cent of overall carbon emissions. If we can do this, we can punch above our weight and make ourselves invaluable to the rest of the world. Our trading partners are looking to decarbonise metal production. The most obvious way to do this is to buy iron from us that's been processed using zero-emissions energy.

This is a huge opportunity for Australia, adding value to our raw materials exports, which adds economic complexity. Unlike creating entire battery supply chains, this is much simpler and more achievable. We're well positioned to become the world's green forge, but it requires some boldness. We need investments to bridge the green premium for first movers, such as the production incentives which are being debated in the House today, and capital investment in transformational infrastructure, technology and R&D. We need a rapid increase in research and development for green metals, specifically targeting Australian ore and the magnetite found in WA. Numerous companies are working on this, and the government should provide support to accelerate it.

We need to revitalise and focus our partnerships with our major trading partners on what we can offer in the future, not locking in our old economy. If our trading partners find other lower emissions ways of producing steel, they will take them. We need to make Australia essential in a decarbonising world. We need efficient approval processes to achieve the necessary timelines for projects without compromising environmental outcomes. Current approval timeframes are shifting investment to other countries.

While we do have comparative advantages, the race is on and we are seeing so many other countries investing heavily to position themselves for the new economy. We need to act decisively. We'll be wasting public money if we don't firmly establish a globally competitive position. This will also send a clear signal to the world that, instead of doubling down on the coal projects of the past or the gas projects with a limited shelf life, we're ambitiously committing to a liveable future and securing our place in it.

The time for this discussion has concluded.

DREYFUS (—) (): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Every Australian deserves to be safe at work.

In recent years, Commonwealth workers have been increasingly subjected to acts of violence and aggression from members of the public.

It is unacceptable—and it is why the Albanese government is introducing the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024.

This bill will strengthen the Commonwealth's ability to protect Commonwealth employees—particularly those on the front line—through the creation of enforceable workplace protection orders.

Violence and aggression have devastating impacts on workers and their families—as well as on the experience of Australians trying to access government services.

Services Australia Security Risk Management Review

The horrific stabbing attack on a staff member at a Services Australia service centre in May 2023 was a devastating reminder that we need to do more to protect workers.

The government commissioned a Services Australia security risk management review. The comprehensive review by Mr Graham Ashton made 44 recommendations to deter acts of aggression against Commonwealth workers and to increase safety. The Albanese government committed to implementing every recommendation.

Unfortunately, Commonwealth workers and workplaces continue to face an increasing risk of violence from members of the public. Between July 2023 and July 2024, Services Australia staff faced 1,692 serious incidents.

The bill responds to this unacceptable situation and implements recommendation 17 of the Ashton review by creating a Commonwealth Workplace Protection Order scheme.

Commonwealth Workplace Protection Order Scheme

The bill establishes a framework to enable an authorised person within a Commonwealth entity to apply to a state or territory Magistrates or Local Court, Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) to issue a Commonwealth workplace protection order (WPO) in order to protect a Commonwealth worker or workplace from threats of harm and actual harm.

Before issuing a WPO, the court must be satisfied that the respondent has engaged in personal violence in relation to a Commonwealth worker or the workplace, and that there is a real risk that the respondent will engage in further personal violence if the order is not made.

The definition of 'personal violence' includes acts of violence, harassment, intimidation, threats of harm and other harmful non-physical acts, such as verbal abuse and conduct engaged in over the phone.

The court may apply any conditions or restrictions it determines necessary to prevent any future risk of personal violence to a Commonwealth worker or workplace.

Conditions may include no contact with a Commonwealth worker or no attendance at a Commonwealth workplace.

In circumstances where urgent protection is required, a Commonwealth entity may write to the court to issue an urgent interim WPO to ensure protections are in place as quickly as possible—before a future court date to consider a final order.

The definition of Commonwealth worker covers employees of Commonwealth entities as defined by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, including Services Australia, the Australian Taxation Office, Veterans' Affairs, Australia Post and ministerial and electorate offices. It also includes contractors. This means hardworking security guards, cleaners, and other external staff are also covered.

Commonwealth workplaces include Commonwealth offices, 'pop-up' service centres in shopping centres, Commonwealth service-delivery vehicles and a Commonwealth worker's residence when working from home.

This protects workers who are working on behalf of the Commonwealth, regardless of where they are.

The bill allows either party to a WPO to apply to the court to vary or revoke a WPO. The court may vary the conditions in the order as well as the length of time the order is in force. This allows flexibility for changing circumstances of either the Commonwealth entity or the respondent. A respondent may also appeal the decision of the court to issue a WPO through standard appeal processes.

The safety of Commonwealth workers comes first, but we also want to ensure individuals can continue to access necessary government services.

If an applicant proposes conditions that would prevent the respondent from accessing Commonwealth benefits or services, the applicant is required to provide the court with information about alternative arrangements for how the respondent may access those benefits or services while they are subject to the WPO.

The court is required to consider the personal circumstances of the respondent when determining the conditions attached to a WPO and ensure that the person still has the ability to access essential public services. In some circumstances, a condition may limit interactions to appointments over the phone. This would allow for ongoing service delivery whilst protecting the physical safety of workers.

The bill will allow information sharing between Commonwealth and law enforcement agencies to proactively manage risks to other Commonwealth workers or workplaces.

Breaching a condition of a WPO will be a criminal offence punishable by two years imprisonment or 120 penalty units or both.

This penalty will act as a deterrent for non-compliance with conditions, while protecting workers from threatening behaviour for an extended period of time.

The bill will commence six months from royal assent to allow time to work with Commonwealth agencies and state and territory jurisdictions on implementation—and to provide clear guidance.

The bill also requires a review three years after commencement.

This bill builds on the layers of protection the Government has created for Commonwealth workers, including the Criminal Code Amendments (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Act2024. The act increased penalties for assaults against Commonwealth frontline workers, and implemented recommendation 18 of the Ashton review.

Violence and aggression towards Commonwealth workers and workplaces is unacceptable.

The Albanese government values the contributions made by Commonwealth workers, and this bill is an important development in protecting Commonwealth workers and workplaces across the country.

No-one should be afraid to go to work, and every worker deserves to come home safe.

This bill will protect Commonwealth workers and ensure members of the community are able to have safe access to Commonwealth government services.

I thank the Minister for Government Services for his strong support in the development of this bill.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

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

(1) this House notes that:

(a) the Coles and Woolworths oligopoly is having an appalling impact on farmers and consumers around Australia;

(b) the people of Australia are being overcharged punitively by the supermarket giants whilst the nation's farmers are being paid prices which are below cost of production and do not provide them a liveable income;

(c) urgent action is required to level the playing field between the farmers and consumers on the one hand and the supermarket giants on the other;

(d) the Member for Kennedy and Member for Clark introduced the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 earlier this year which divests supermarkets of this market power, specifically by setting market power limits with associated timeframes, providing significant penalties and establishing an oversight body; and

(e) the Government's legislation merely increasing penalties does nothing to reform the supermarket sector and will only further line the pockets of the legal fraternity, and the current code penalty of $64,000 has rarely, if ever, been enforced; and

(2) the Member for Kennedy be permitted to present the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 immediately, and the bill be given priority over all other business in order to stop any further delay in providing affordability to consumers and fairness to farmers.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

I second the member for Kennedy's motion and reserve my right to speak.

Shortly I will present to the House the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill 2024. That will put in place the penalties regime that will underpin a mandatory food and grocery code. The government will not be supporting the member for Kennedy's bill, because we are keen that the parliament move ahead with the most important reform to the food and grocery code this decade. This is a reform which is broadly supported by horticulture suppliers. It is the result of extensive engagement by the government, and I thank the National Farmers Federation, their horticulture council and the many people who have worked with Craig Emerson and his expert review.

This government is about getting a fairer deal for farmers and a fairer deal for families. When the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct was set up by the Liberals and Nationals in 2015, they set it up as a toothless voluntary code. Then, in 2018, when the member for Maranoa, now the shadow agriculture minister, was the agriculture minister, they reviewed it and they decided that it should remain a toothless voluntary code. Labor disagrees. We have worked constructively with the supplier groups in order to put in place what will soon be a mandatory food and grocery code of conduct with multimillion-dollar penalties. This change will be vital in changing the power imbalance between supermarkets and their suppliers. It is something that has been long called for. I acknowledge those suppliers who've spoken out confidentially and have said that under the current regime they feel there is a power imbalance that makes it impossible for them to deal with supermarkets without the risk of retaliation.

The food and grocery code's structure remains unchanged, but it's penalties significantly ramp up. Craig Emerson's work, in engaging with these groups, has made clear that the system that we were left by the Liberals and Nationals when we came to office was manifestly inadequate. The Liberals and Nationals left us with a system that was unable to deal with the concerns of farmers and unable to deal with the concerns of suppliers.

When we are concerned about the power of large firms, we'll often speak about monopoly power—about the way in which big firms can squeeze their consumers. But there's another concept that goes back to Joan Robinson, and that is monopsony power. Monopsony power is when you squeeze your suppliers—when you squeeze those upstream. It's when suppliers and workers can be hurt by the power of big firms throwing their weight around. Monopsony power is the evil twin of monopoly power.

In our supermarket reforms, we are dealing with both these evil twins. We're dealing with monopsony power through making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory. We are dealing with monopoly power by our reforms to put in place an ACCC review of the way in which the supermarkets operate, through providing CHOICE with funding to carry out quarterly grocery price monitoring, providing Australians the information they need about where to get the very best deal at the checkout. We are providing the ACCC with resources to enforce the Unit Pricing Code, because Australians are sick of shrinkflation, sick of going into the supermarkets and finding that the pricing isn't the way it should be. So, through our reforms, we are ensuring that suppliers to supermarkets get a better deal and that consumers from supermarkets get a better deal.

Australia's supermarket sector is one of the most concentrated in the world. The top two supermarkets have two-thirds of the market. The top three supermarkets have three-quarters of the market. That is a more concentrated grocery sector than all but a couple of other countries in the OECD.

With great power comes great responsibility. It is important that we have reforms in place that deal with the potential of those large supermarkets to throw their weight around. We've heard stories about fresh produce suppliers going out of business because of their inability to get proper redress through the current toothless, voluntary Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. We've seen accounts of farmers who feel that, if they're bringing perishables to market and there are only a couple of places they can sell those perishables to, the current Food and Grocery Code of Conduct doesn't allow them to raise appropriate complaints.

I acknowledge the work that the code mediator has done, but the code mediator has been operating under a voluntary code. Chris Leptos has done his best work with the rules that are available to him, but the rules available to him—rules set up by the Liberal and National parties—just aren't good enough. A voluntary code of conduct was good enough for the Liberals and Nationals in office; it is not good enough for Labor in office. The agriculture minister, Julie Collins, has been a strong champion of a mandatory food and grocery code of conduct.

We, on this side, understand that competition can be a double squeeze on farmers. Farmers buy their inputs from highly concentrated sectors. There are sometimes only a few firms that supply certain tractors or from which you can buy your fertiliser or seeds. Farmers then sell into concentrated markets—just a couple of supermarkets, just a few processors. Farming itself is a pretty competitive industry. In a lot of sectors there are a lot of farmers. So they're competing against one another, but they're getting squeezed upstream and squeezed downstream. The consequence is that some farmers are just choosing to walk off the land.

The Albanese government understands this challenge. We recognise that the way in which competition policy works in Australia just isn't good enough for farmers. We understand that a more competitive and dynamic economy matters for the productivity of the entire economy but particularly matters in our farming sector. Our farming sector is almost a case study of the problems of a lack of dynamism and competition in the economy.

Under those opposite, we saw a rise in market concentration. We saw a rise in mark-ups, which is a fancy economics term for the gap between what it costs firms to produce a product and what they sell that product for. We saw a decline in the creation rate of employing small businesses. All of that suggests that a lack of competition is one of the reasons why productivity growth in the 2010s was so lousy under those opposite. They were asleep at the wheel when it came to competition policy, and Australia's productivity performance paid the price.

A revitalisation of competition policy will be good for productivity and will flow through to the wellbeing of Australian households. On the Productivity Commission's estimate, the national competition policy reforms of the 1990s boosted GDP by a permanent lift of 2.5 per cent. In today's money, that's $5,000 for every Australian household. The estimates that Treasury has done of a revitalisation of national competition policy again are of a similar order of magnitude. We now have the Senate considering the biggest merger reforms in 50 years, merger reforms that those opposite were too fearful to take on. I vividly remember, in August 2021, when Rod Sims, then the head of the ACCC, gave us a carefully considered speech in which he outlined the merger reforms supported by the ACCC. Treasurer Frydenberg ruled it out within hours. That's how unwilling those opposite were to consider competition reform to one of the most critical parts of the competition ecosystem.

We have worked constructively with business, we've engaged with stakeholders and we have brought to the parliament a merger shake-up which will ensure the system is more efficient, more transparent and more streamlined and that the ACCC focuses on the high-risk mergers, not the low-risk ones. I pay tribute to the Treasurer and the competition taskforce and their expert panel for their work on those reforms. Labor is the party of consumers. Labor is the party of competition. More competition means a better deal for consumers, a better deal for workers and a more productive and dynamic economy. A lack of competition has been holding Australia back. More competition will be good for our economy and will deliver for Australian households. I look forward, in a few moments, to being able to introduce Labor's fairer for farmers and families bill.

Is the member for Kennedy seeking the call?

I stood up before the minister to move my legislation—

On a point of order?

I'm just asking you for a ruling. I stood up before him. Deputy Speaker Claydon gave the call to him, and she said she'd come back to me for my legislation. Do I have a right to put the legislation forward or don't I?

You're suspending standing orders.

You're not the Speaker, and I'd appreciate it if you'd shut up.

The member for Kennedy has addressed his question to the Deputy Speaker, and I will endeavour to answer that question. My understanding is that you do not have another opportunity to speak, as you have already done so in this debate.

I have not spoken in this debate—

I'm sorry. I wasn't in the chair, but my understanding is that you have moved this motion, so as mover you have spoken already.

I didn't get to speak. That's my point—

You've spoken. We heard you speak.

The member for Kennedy will need leave to speak. I could either ask if leave is granted or give the call to the member for Calare.

As I understand the orders, if I moved my legislation—

Is leave granted for the member for Kennedy to speak?

Honourable members interjecting—

Through the chair, the proposition is that the member for Kennedy allow the Deputy Speaker to give the call to the member for Calare whilst a conversation takes place. That's my understanding.

I'm not sure if I'm speaking on my bill or his bill. But it doesn't matter. If I'm just given the opportunity to speak, I'll take advantage of that opportunity. Now—

The member for Kennedy doesn't have the call. The member for Kennedy is seeking leave. Is leave granted?

Leave is not granted.

Leave is not granted. The member for Kennedy does not have the call.

Leave was not granted to the member for Kennedy; therefore, the member for Kennedy does not have leave to speak. I would ask that the member for Kennedy take—

I'm not sure that you can do that, member for Kennedy.

To assist the House, is the member for Calare seeking to speak on this motion? I give the call to the member for Calare, and I would ask the member for Kennedy to take his seat.

Thank you. I must say that I support the member for Kennedy in his desire to be heard on this matter of urgency that he and the member for Clark have brought to this place. I believe that leave should've been granted for the member for Kennedy to have his say on this very important issue to not only the people of country Queensland but country Australians everywhere—indeed, Australians all over our great nation, because this is a very urgent matter that this House faces today. This cost-of-living crisis is doing immense damage all around our country. It's being made much worse by the actions of supermarket giants who are price gouging farmers at the farm gate, and they are price gouging consumers at the checkout as well. Therefore, I am a very strong supporter of the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark's Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 because it actually takes real and effective action to do something about this arrant price gouging that farmers and consumers have been putting up with for far too long. It actually brings in, and ushers in, real change and lasting change, not more talk.

With respect to the major parties, we have seen a lot of talk on this issue but not enough real action. What the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark are doing in this House today is giving members the opportunity to vote for real and effective action that would reduce the market power of the supermarket giants and limit the amount of profits they could make. They would stamp out the price gouging and every member of this House will have an opportunity to vote on this game-changing legislation.

We've heard a lot about the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. Well, folks, I'm here to tell you, the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct is not worth the paper it's written on. It is an absolute joke. It has been ineffective for years, and making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, as the major parties are suggesting, won't do anything. I'm pretty shocked that the National Party is suggesting that making it mandatory will have some sort of effect. All of the major players are already signed up—signed, sealed and delivered into the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct—and it has made no difference for years. It has not stopped the price gouging. It has not stopped the damage that is being inflicted on farmers and consumers all around our country. What the bill from the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark will do is actually bring in real and mandatory divesture of the supermarket giants. I know that the Liberals and Nationals have brought in their own bill, but it would be totally ineffective. As drafted, their divestiture powers are highly unlikely to ever be used, and if they are it will just amount to a lawyer's picnic that will last for years and will do nothing to stop the rampant price gouging in the cost-of-living crisis that is occurring right now. This conduct which farmers and consumers are putting up with day in and day out is unconscionable.

The coalition is spruiking, as I said, that the code will now be mandatory. The government is now spruiking that as well, but the major supermarkets signed up to that long ago, and it hasn't stopped farmers and consumers being stung by them for years. What the member for Kennedy and member for Clark are doing is giving members of this House the opportunity to take real and effective action right now—to stand up for our farmers and not just talk the talk but actually cast a vote in this House, our national parliament, to do something about finally reducing the dominance of these supermarket giants who are doing so much damage to farmers and consumers around Australia.

That's why I fully support the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark in their efforts. This legislation is game changing. I had the member for Kennedy come to my own electorate to speak to local residents and local farmers about the importance of backing this bill. We were rudely interrupted, when he came to Orange, by a National Party senator. I'm very pleased that the member for Kennedy, in a style that only he could fashion, shirt fronted the National Party senator, actually sat that Senator down and sent him on his way. It just shows you that the major parties, including the National Party, are not serious about stopping the price gouging and getting behind real legislation that can make a difference to farmers and consumers around Australia.

by leave—I mean to address an issue that would reduce the price of food in this country by 30 per cent and then to be given five minutes after three efforts to move the resolution and exercise my rights in the standing orders of this parliament. I know a little bit about those, because I have been here for 30 years, which is more than anyone else can say. Let me turn to the issue in the four minutes I've got left. I'm very angry, and I'm going to take this matter further, I can assure you.

In 1991, Coles and Woolworths had 51 per cent of the market, and their mark-up was near enough to 97 per cent. I think that's outrageous. My family have had clothing stores for generations in Australia, and we never went over 50 per cent. And this is fashion goods. After two years, you just have to throw them away, and we used a 50 per cent mark-up. Well, these people were using a 100 per cent markup on food. This was in 1991, when they had 51 per cent of the market. By 2001, they had 70 per cent of the market. Those are not my figures; the government figures said 68 per cent of the market, and the ANOP grocery world figures said it was 72 per cent of the market. So there's no doubt that they've risen from 51 to 70 per cent and that the mark-up went from 100 per cent to 200 per cent. Since then—what, they haven't grown since then? They were growing at two per cent a year. They didn't suddenly stop in the year 2001. The mark-up now is more than 200 per cent. It's probably climbing up close to 300 per cent. Now, we are not a government department, so all we could do was select 15 items. It was quite clear that the mark-up had gone from 100 per cent to 200 per cent to nearly 300 per cent in that period of time.

The people in this place that are taking $300,000 a year off the taxpayers have done absolutely nothing, and here we are yet again. The member for Clark, myself, the member for Calare and all the crossbenchers are moving once again to do something about it. All the government is doing is saying, 'We're going to have a look at it, and if they're naughty boys we're going to punish them.' That is the essence of the legislation, right? So how are you going to prove they're naughty boys? They've got a bigger turnover, I think, than the government has got. You've got Buckley's chance of proving anything against them.

There is no other country on earth—England was the worst, when we looked, and, in England, the top six had 36 per cent of the market and there were people squealing in England over it, and they were the worst. (Time expired)

The question is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Kennedy be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer For Families And Farmers And Other Measures) Bill 2024

The Albanese government is working hard to get a fairer go for families and a fairer go for farmers.

We know that large firms don't just squeeze their consumers, they squeeze their suppliers too. We have heard too many stories about the suppliers not getting a fair deal.

Earlier this year, third-generation cherry farmer Michael Cunial said that he was getting out of the industry. He told the ABC: 'We're at the mercy of them. We're price takers. So the profit just isn't there anymore… "There's a huge, huge imbalance. Supermarkets are making these multi-billion-dollar profits and growers are losing money.'

When the Food and Grocery Code was established by the former coalition government in 2015, it was set up as a voluntary code. When it was reviewed in 2018, the former coalition government decided that it should remain a voluntary code. I note in passing that this decision was made when the current shadow agriculture minister, the member for Maranoa, was the agriculture minister. The member for Maranoa had a chance to deliver a mandatory Food and Grocery Code, but decided to keep the code voluntary.

When Labor came to office, we asked former competition minister Dr Craig Emerson, one of Australia's best policy brains, to review the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. Dr Emerson consulted broadly, and concluded that the code was not doing its job. As he noted, there were no penalties, and no formal complaints had been raised after the 2021-22 financial year. His report made 11 recommendations, and the government accepted all of them. The most important recommendation was that the Food and Grocery Code be made mandatory, with substantial penalties for more harmful breaches.

As Dr Emerson noted, what it really means is that the supermarkets will need to treat their suppliers in good faith. They must not abuse their superior bargaining power, the muscle that they have over smaller suppliers.

The government's intention is that penalties will apply principally to corporations—that is, to supermarkets themselves. Consistent with other industry codes, the bill provides for non-body corporate penalties. Breaches by non-bodies corporate are lower to provide a proportionate approach.

The bill will ensure penalties for treating suppliers poorly in breach of the code are not merely a cost of doing business. These are serious penalties. They are the highest corporate penalties under any industry code.

The bill provides that the maximum penalty that can be prescribed in the code will be the greater of $10 million, three times the value of the benefit gained from the contravening conduct, or 10 per cent turnover in the preceding 12 months.

The introduction of penalties into the new Food and Grocery Code will enable the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to issue infringement notices where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a supermarket has breached the code. These are an important tool in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission armoury that allow for efficient, low-cost enforcement outcomes for minor breaches.

The new Food and Grocery Code of Conduct regulations, the substance of the code, will be made this year, with the code coming into force from 1 April 2025. The code will implement other recommendations including making the code mandatory, strengthening the dispute resolution process and new obligations to protect suppliers from retribution. This will be complemented by the establishment of an anonymous supplier and whistle-blower complaints pathway through the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

This is only one part of Labor's extensive supermarket competition policy agenda. We are cracking down on shrinkflation by strengthening the Unit Pricing Code to make it easier for Australians to make accurate and timely price comparisons, working with the states and territories to reform planning and zoning regulations to boost competition and reduce land banking, ensuring the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be notified of every merger in the supermarket sector in the biggest strengthening of Australia's merger settings in half a century and providing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with an additional $30 million in funding to crack down on misleading and deceptive pricing practices in the supermarket and retail sectors.

We've raised the penalties for anticompetitive conduct, banned unfair contract terms, funded CHOICE to conduct quarterly price monitoring, and we're consulting on a general prohibition on unfair trading practices.

Dominant firms can squeeze their suppliers—something called monopsony power. The government is scrutinising the use of non-compete clauses in worker contracts due to concerns that they may be anticompetitive. And a concern over monopsony power is why our government is making the Food and Grocery Code mandatory, because competition reform isn't just about benefiting consumers, it's about benefiting workers and farmers too. More competition means a more dynamic and efficient economy.

Enabling higher penalties to be prescribed in the Food and Grocery Code is not the only measure in this bill. I turn now to a discussion of each of the schedules in the bill.

Schedule 1 to the bill is necessary for the transfer of business register functions back to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and to delay autocommencement of corporate collective investment vehicle reporting provisions as a result of the government's decision to stop the former Modernising Business Registers program.

The legislative changes outlined in schedule 1 to the bill will ensure that the employment terms and conditions of transferring staff are maintained in line with the Public Service Act 1999 and the Fair Work Act 2009. These legislative changes are required as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is not within the Australian Public Service. These legislative changes will provide continuity of business register services by minimising potential staffing changes and will also ensure business registers staff will be subject to the same legislative framework as existing Australian Securities and Investments Commission staff members when they conduct their duties.

Schedule 1 to the bill will also provide for legislative changes necessary to give greater time to analyse reporting provisions related to corporate collective investment vehicles. These provisions were designed under the former Modernising Business Registers program but require further consideration following the government's decision to stop the program.

Schedule 2 to the bill seeks to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Australian Consumer Law, to streamline product safety standards and save businesses $5 billion over 10 years in administrative, testing and compliance costs once fully implemented. These changes will also help lower the cost of household products and take pressure off Australians by offering greater product choice for consumers without compromising safety.

Globally, consumer goods are often manufactured and tested to product safety standards developed by expert organisations which are widely accepted in major economies such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

However, the Australian Consumer Law does not easily allow for overseas standards to be recognised alongside Australian standards. Instead, the current provisions lead to duplicative retesting and relabelling to adhere to the relevant Australian standard, even when the product already complies with an overseas standard which offers an equivalent or a better level of consumer protection. The changes proposed by this bill will make it easier for the Commonwealth minister to recognise trusted overseas standards in safety and information standards made under the Australian Consumer Law. This will mean that Australian regulation keeps pace with updates to Australian and overseas standards. The changes also require businesses to provide evidence of compliance with mandatory standards following a request from the regulator.

The reforms will allow businesses to import and sell products without duplicative testing and compliance measures, provided the products have been tested and are found to comply with a trusted, equivalent overseas safety standard. They will allow businesses to expand their product ranges and import products sooner without compromising on consumer safety. They will also ensure that compliance requirements in Australia do not fall out of step with international best practice as Australian and overseas standards are updated.

These changes are good for consumers and good for businesses. They will help drive competition by increasing consumer choice, all the while ensuring product safety standards are held to a high standard to keep Australians safe.

Schedule 3 to the bill seeks to amend the Housing Australia Act 2018 to increase the legislated cap on the amount of money which can be credited to a dedicated special account established to fund and support Housing Australia's housing finance programs.

The act established Housing Australia to improve housing outcomes for Australians, including through efforts to increase supply of, provide finance for, and encourage investment in, social and affordable housing.

The act also establishes the Housing Australia Special Account, which sets aside funds from consolidated revenue, to fund and support the provision of finance for social and affordable homes. Housing Australia draws down on the Housing Australia Special Account to fund, through loans and grants, organisations to support the provision of social and affordable homes through a range of housing finance programs. These include the Housing Australia Future Fund Facility, the National Housing Accord Facility and the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator.

The balance of the special account is subject to a legislated cap of $1 billion under section 47D(1) of the act. If the balance of the special account exceeds $1 billion, any funds above the cap must be returned to consolidated revenue. This means any excess funds would be 'lost' from the special account and not able to be used to fund Housing Australia's social and affordable housing finance programs.

In the 2024-25 budget, the government increased the size of the line of credit supporting the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator program from $1 billion to $4 billion to support more lending to community housing providers who are crucial to the delivery of social and affordable housing. Increasing the cap on the special account would enable the full $4 billion of funds to be made available to Housing Australia in accordance with this budget decision. Additionally, the first rounds of the Housing Australia Future Fund Facility and National Housing Accord Facility will deliver an additional 13,700 social and affordable dwellings, which will be supported through funding that flows through the Housing Australia Special Account.

This means the Housing Australia Special Account is subject to increased frequency and volume of both drawdown and replenishment to support the financing of social and affordable homes. This amendment will support the government's commitment to deliver 40,000 social and affordable homes by enabling Housing Australia to approve more applications for financing, helping more Australians into social or affordable homes as soon as possible.

Schedule 4 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to strengthen the penalty regime for industry codes, including by permitting higher maximum penalties to be set for breaches of the new food and grocery code and the unit pricing code. The schedule also increases infringement notice penalties for alleged breaches of industry codes generally and clarifies the ability for industry codes to confer functions and powers on persons and bodies.

The schedule makes the legislative changes needed to implement the government's respective responses to the food and grocery code review and the franchising code review, and the government's announcement to introduce substantial penalties for supermarkets who breach the unit pricing code. The schedule also creates consistency and strengthens the enforcement regime across industry codes to deter non-compliant behaviour.

These changes form part of a range of actions the government is taking to foster a competitive and sustainable supermarket industry to get a better deal for supermarket customers and suppliers.

Schedule 5 to the bill amends the income tax law to specifically list Skip Foundation Ltd as a deductible gift recipient.

Specifically listing an organisation encourages philanthropic giving and supports the not-for-profit sector as donors may claim income tax deductions for donations to organisations with deductible gift recipient status.

The schedule also removes the following specifically listed deductible gift recipients as the organisations are no longer operating: 

The removal of inactive specific listings is necessary to maintain trust and integrity in the administration of tax concessions that can be accessed by not-for-profits that have deductible gift recipient status.

Schedule 6 to the bill amends various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure these laws operate in accordance with policy intent, to make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences, as well as correcting technical and drafting defects.

In closing, let me thank the many officials within Treasury who have worked on this bill. I want to acknowledge the valuable work of Craig Emerson and his secretariat in bringing down the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct review. I want to particularly thank my adviser Tori Barker, who's here on the floor of parliament, for her critical work throughout this process and in bringing this important reform to fruition.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That the amendment be agreed to.

This is an important reform for multinational tax integrity in Australia. This bill puts in place a global minimum tax. It ends the race to the bottom in company taxes that imperils the corporate tax base around the world. That matters for all countries that impose corporate taxes but particularly for Australia, which has traditionally drawn a considerable share of the revenue that we use to fund schools, roads and hospitals from corporate taxes. By having that global minimum floor, that 15 per cent minimum floor, Australians will be made better off.

This bill is about fairness. It's about ensuring multinationals pay their fair share. Australia welcomes foreign investment, but being a multinational is no license to dodge taxes. It is vital that multinationals understand that Australia is serious about multinational tax compliance.

No government in Australian history has done more than the Albanese government to address multinational tax integrity. No government around the world is doing more to close multinational tax loopholes and improve transparency.

I commend the bill and this amendment to the House.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the following reports: Report No.8 of 2024, Department of DefenceArmy AviationOmnibus Program of Works and other works; and report No. 9 of 2024, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the ArtsCommand Centre and Canine Facility at Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport and other works.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the eighth and ninth reports for 2024. Together, these reports consider six proposals referred to the committee by the Department of Defence, the CSIRO, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. In total, these works have a combined value of just over $1,213,000,000.

The two proposals from Defence sought to spend $651 million to provide upgraded facilities and infrastructure for aircraft at RAAF base Townsville, HMAS Albatross in Nowra and HMAS Stirling near Rockingham in WA. The project at RAAF Base Townsville will support 29 Apache attack helicopters acquired in March 2022. These aircraft will replace the Tiger fleet operated by the 1st Aviation Regiment. The works will also provide new permanent facilities for the 16th Aviation Brigade, who relocated to RAAF Base Townsville from Gallipoli Barracks in 2024. The committee did not identify any concerns with the proposal.

The project at HMAS Albatross in Nowra will provide new and upgraded facilities and infrastructure to provide 12 new MH-60R Seahawk Romeo helicopters for the Navy. This includes upgrades to hangars and administration areas, extensions of car parking spaces, a new headquarters, training simulator facilities that we inspected and the construction of aircraft pavement and aprons. One element, an equipment shelter, will be constructed at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia. The committee did not identify any concerns with the proposal and encourages Defence to support the participation of the local Shoalhaven construction industry in this project where possible.

The proposal from the CSIRO sought to spend $29.9 million to replace ageing electrical infrastructure at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness. The infrastructure was installed in 1985 and the switchboards, cabling and generators need preplacement. The centre is a purpose-built facility that protects Australia's livestock and aquaculture industries from exotic and emerging infectious animal and zoonotic diseases. The works will also feed into a multistage part-life refit of the centre to enable operations to continue for the next 30 years.

After an inspection, the committee did not identify any concerns with the proposal and acknowledges the important work of the centre and the severe consequences that would result for any failure in biosecurity containment.

The two proposals from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought to spend $219 million for construction of a new chancery in Honiara in the Solomon Islands and an office consolidation and fit-out here in Canberra. The new chancery in Honiara will support Australia's crucial diplomatic presence in the South Pacific. The existing chancery was constructed in the 1980s and, although it has had an extension and fit-out since opening, it no longer meets the Australian government's needs. Construction will use an Australian modular prefabricated off-site manufactured approach. The modular construction will allow the building to be constructed and commissioned in Australia and then dismantled, shipped and reassembled on-site in the Solomons, and the committee hope to inspect the construction process. The committee did not identify any issues or concerns with the proposal. The committee noted the benefits of the prefabricated construction method.

The DFAT office fit-out in Canberra will consolidate three buildings with leases expiring in 2026 and 2027 to a single site in Barton close to the future National Security Office Precinct. The premises will accommodate 1,500 staff. The fit-out will include two basement-level car parks, a ground floor and five levels of office space.

The committee did not identify any issues or concerns with the proposal and encourages DFAT's intention to provide further opportunities for staff to give feedback on the design before fit-out inclusions are finalised.

The final proposal is for a command centre and a canine facility at Western Sydney International Airport, put forward by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, for a cost just over $312 million.

The opening of the airport in late 2026 will generate a large volume of international passengers and cargo. The establishment of the command centre and canine facility will enable the Australian Border Force, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Australian Federal Police to manage aviation security, biosecurity and other international border arrangements. The committee did not identify any issues or concerns with the proposal and notes the benefits of co-locating agencies with shared border protection responsibilities. The committee also notes that the agency will be leading specialist elements of each fit-out individually, which may require further committee scrutiny.

The committee would like to extend its thanks to those who provided written and oral evidence in support of these inquiries and also for those that assisted with the inspections for all projects. The committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed works be carried out. I commend the reports to the House.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, I present the committee's final report, entitled Redress: Journey to justice.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—The report was presented to the Senate yesterday by the chair of the committee, Senator Catryna Bilyk. But, because of the importance of it to the tens of thousands of people who are directly affected by the scheme, I take this opportunity to make a few brief remarks. Having read the remarks made by the chair, I cannot say it any better than how she did when she presented the report to the Senate, so I will quote directly from her speech. But I won't quote the speech in full; I'll just stick to what I think are the key areas, which will at least give some guidance to anyone who's following the presentation of this report. In saying that, I note you, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, were a member for the committee, as was the member for Paterson and the member for Bass, who are in the chamber here today. It's good to have them here whilst the report is being presented.

I will quote directly from Senator Bilyk's statement:

On 28 November 2022, the committee resolved to inquire into and report upon the operation of the National Redress Scheme. A key focus of the committee's work was to examine the experience of First Nations applicants and applicants with disability in their dealings with the scheme. The committee also examined the accessibility and effectiveness of support services and legal advice for survivors and their advocates.

…   …   …

A critical concern of the committee is that the time left for the scheme is running out. The scheme closes to new applications in mid-2027 and ceases in 2028. Unless changes are made, some survivors could miss out on redress. To address this, the committee has recommended that the Australian government work with states and territories to extend the life of the scheme … We recommend increasing funding for the Department of Social Services, knowmore Legal and other support services to ensure all applications can be finalised on time, and we recommend undertaking a publicity campaign to ensure that survivors are aware of the deadline. The scheduled eight-year review should consider how the scheme will close, how to maximise the number of applications dealt with in the time remaining, and alternative options for survivors if redress cannot be offered because a responsible institution does not fulfil its intention to join.

The committee received evidence relating to the experience of survivors within the scheme. Retelling their stories as part of their application is traumatising for so many. Frankly, many of them deserve a lot better. The committee has recommended improvements to the way the Department of Social Services deals with clients …

…   …   …

More than 900 institutions have been declared into the scheme, including a number that are listed on the website as 'intending to participate'.

…   …   …

We think the scheme would be improved by regular information from the Australian government on the names of institutions that have refused to join.

In addition, the government should consider, before the scheme closes, what penalties will be directed to institutions that did not participate.

The committee received numerous examples of inconsistent outcomes from the scheme. We were told that sometimes two applications describing very similar events can lead to drastically different outcomes. A critical recommendation is that decisions on eligibility should be considered by panels of independent decision-makers, or, if this is not possible for all applications, those found ineligible should be automatically escalated to a panel review. Further, we heard that a number of applicants are afraid to ask for a review of their decision. To address this, we recommend the legislation be amended to especially provide that a review of a redress determination cannot result in an offer being reduced or reversed.

…   …   …

The importance of having support services available is paramount. The committee has made several recommendations regarding better targeting of services to support survivors applying for redress. In particular, the committee recommends that funding for support services should be extended until two years after the expiration of the scheme … The committee recommends that a consistent approach to virginity testing in Australia be articulated, and this should be the subject of a separate inquiry.

As I said earlier, I believe that those comments from the chair of the committee, Senator Catryna Bilyk, wrap up the key parts of the report, but the report is much more in-depth than that. For anyone who wants to know more, I point them to it and suggest that they read it. It was, in fact, from my experience, one of the perhaps more delicate and sensitive inquiries that I have been a party to. I have to say, I heard some incredibly emotional stories with respect to the experiences of survivors that have now applied for some sort of redress. For the benefit of the House, as of 9 August, some 46,280 claims have been lodged. Of those, 16,214 offers were accepted and there has been about a $1.5 billion payout to those.

In closing, I say thank you to all of the people who appeared before the committee, particularly those who were survivors themselves, and I thank them for the evidence that they gave. It must have been incredibly traumatic for them to do so, but at least they presented us with a truthful account of what took place. I also thank all of those agencies that have helped those people along the way. In particular I, on behalf of the chair, thank our committee members for the work that they did in working through this step by step, because it was sensitive and it did truly matter to the lives of those people affected. Lastly, I thank the secretariat, who, again, had an incredible role in trying to ensure that everything was handled in a very sensitive and delicate way. They did that, and my thanks go to them. With those comments, I present the report.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, I present the committee's report, incorporating additional comments from the coalition members and senator, entitled Inquiry into economic self-determination and opportunities for First Nations Australians.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I'd like to begin by thanking the chair, Senator Stewart, in the other place; other committee members; and particularly the secretariat of the committee for all their hard work in organising hearings and the publication of the inquiry report. I also thank everyone who made a submission to the inquiry. This included 109 individuals, organisations and government agencies, including from my own electorate of Durack.

I'm sure I speak for all the members of the committee when I say that this was an important inquiry, as it provided an opportunity to look at practical solutions to contribute to closing the economic gap that exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The chair's report included 22 recommendations. These were divided into sections relating to enhancing access to capital and activating the Indigenous estate; Indigenous culture and intellectual property; vocational training and new industries; and employing the lessons from international jurisdictions.

Now, whilst the coalition members and senator of the committee didn't submit a dissenting report, it was important for us to submit additional comments. Therein, we outlined the different approach we believe should be taken and have outlined 12 recommendations that we agreed with or could support with slight amendment.

Firstly, it was clear from the inquiry that there is a big gap in collecting data on Indigenous businesses. It's common sense that the government should better understand the composition and economic contribution of Indigenous businesses.

Another area we agreed on was consideration to be given on the future of the Indigenous Procurement Policy, known as the IPP. The IPP commenced in 2015, under the then coalition government, and has since contributed $10 billion in Commonwealth contracts for Indigenous businesses. This policy has been a clear driver for the rapid growth of the Indigenous business sector, and the coalition is particularly proud of that.

While the committee has recommended that the three per cent target for total number of contracts and 1.75 per cent target for total value of accessible contracts to be awarded to Indigenous businesses be expanded, I would like to note that these targets are already being exceeded and so I would say they're not ambitious enough. It is important though to ensure that the IPP is delivering on its purposes to stimulate Indigenous entrepreneurship, business and economic development. For this reason, the definition of Indigenous businesses and issues around so-called black cladding should be considered by the minister.

Seeing more Indigenous Australians start their own business is something we would all very much like to see. The inquiry highlighted some of the barriers that exist, with the greatest being access to capital. Now, I don't dispute this claim. However, I will note not all of the solutions put forward are worthy of serious consideration. One such example is the call for superannuation funds to be mandated to invest in Indigenous ventures. Superannuation belongs to the Australian people; it is not something for the government to play with.

Homeownership is critical to economic wellbeing and is correctly noted in this report as enabling further economic opportunities. Unfortunately, this is another area where we see a gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Both targeted and broader policies like the coalition's recently announced housing infrastructure program should be considered by the government.

A targeted measure we recommend was that the government commit to a full review of the Native Title Act. This should be done with a view to encourage private homeownership and business creation on native title land. The coalition notes that the native title framework has left many Indigenous Australians land rich but dirt poor.

Also problematic was the weight given to opportunities in the energy transition. Each day it becomes clearer and clearer that the Albanese Labor government has not been honest with the Australian people with regard to their renewables only strategy.

I would like to close with a few general comments. The first is the clear irony in concluding that the path to self-economic determination is through greater dependence on the Commonwealth government. It is the view of the coalition that the goal must be to minimise this dependence over time. Only that would look like success. Another issue we had was the general tone of the report. Australians have made very clear that they want practical solutions, not merely symbolic actions. Unfortunately, this report looks to include buzzwords and, in multiple cases, too many agencies are being tasked to do the same thing.

Once again, I'd like to thank my committee colleagues and note that the work of the committee continues with our inquiry into the Greens Truth and Justice Commission Bill, which is due to report next year.

by leave—I want to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on this important report tabled today. In particular, I acknowledge the fine work of the committee chair, Senator Jana Stewart, as well as the work of the deputy chair, the member for Durack. Thank you for your efforts. I want to thank the committee secretariat as well. They play a crucial role in helping to deliver important reports such as this, and their tireless efforts are always appreciated. Finally, I want to express my immense gratitude for the public's engagement with this inquiry, as the committee received 115 written submissions to inform the report and was assisted by a multitude of witnesses during the eight public hearings held for the inquiry. To all who contributed: thank you for your invaluable insights into this subject matter.

The importance of this report and the committee's inquiry into economic self-determination and opportunities for First Nations Australians cannot be overstated. First Nations Australians are huge contributors to the Australian economy. The report rightly states that they punch above their weight considering the significant disadvantages First Nations people still have in our country. Research from the University of Melbourne shows that First Nations businesses generate $16.1 billion a year in revenue, employ more than 116,000 people, pay $4.2 million in wages and are 40 to 100 times more likely than non-Indigenous businesses to employ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff. That last bit means that not only does the First Nations economy produce massive benefits for Australia in an economic sense, but it also provides crucial uplift for some of the most disadvantaged people and communities in this country. The report found that, for every dollar of revenue spent by these businesses, First Nations enterprises go on to create $4.41 of economic and social value. This is a First Nations economy that is, as I speak, smashing barriers and changing lives for thousands upon thousands of Australians who work within those businesses. It's one whose success filters to the very ground level of First Nations communities.

This is a significant strength of our national economy, one that is genuinely life changing for First Nations people, but it continues to fly under the radar. That's why it's so important we, as legislators, are actively looking at ways we can support and expand the First Nations economy. The report rightly provides 22 recommendations to that effect. This underpins a fundamental reframing of the First Nations economic narrative by developing new instruments and strengthening existing ones to enhance First Nations people's access to finance and capital.

I'm also proud to note that the Albanese Labor government has already taken significant steps in this direction, making historic investments into jobs, education, health and opportunities, including fee-free TAFE, which has seen 30,000 First Nations enrolments; a $777.4 million investment, alongside 3,000 jobs created in remote Australia; and the establishment of a First Nations economic partnership to foster comprehensive economic dialogue from the ground up. We're doing this because, as the inquiry makes clear, with the right government approach historical barriers to wealth, employment and social inclusion can be addressed meaningfully through ensuring that First Nations Australians are able to better access economic opportunities.

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I present the committee's report entitled Trading north: inquiry into the role of Australian agriculture in Southeast Asian markets, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I present today the report of the inquiry into the role of Australian agriculture in South-East Asian markets: Trading north.

In September 2023, the Australian government released a report produced under the leadership of Mr Nicholas Moore AO, the Special Envoy for Southeast Asia, titled Invested: Australia's Southeast Asia economic strategy to 2040, otherwise known as the Moore report. This seminal work highlighted the importance of Australia's relationship to South-East Asia across a whole range of economic activities and made a series of recommendations to improve Australia's engagement with the region. The Moore report also stressed the need to look beyond trade to broader and more closely integrated relationships with South-East Asia.

With trade in agriculture and food being one of the cornerstones of Australia's relationship with the region, the committee was asked to inquire into the role of Australian agriculture in South-East Asian markets, in the context of the Moore report and those recommendations. In particular, the committee was asked to focus on how the Australian government could support the agriculture sector to leverage opportunities in the region, build and strengthen partnerships, and support South-East Asia's food security.

Australia has an important role to play in the food security of South-East Asia, through food exports and by building the capability of the agriculture and food production sectors of the region. Australian technology and production systems also have much to offer. Long-term investment in regional relationships will be vital to progressing trade and regional collaboration and cooperation with our South-East Asian neighbours.

The committee has made 13 recommendations in this report. These recommendations fall within three broad themes: opportunities and challenges, building relationships and enhancing food security while building capability. Most of the committee's recommendations focus on ensuring the government activities around trade, regional engagement, food security, biosecurity and capability building are adequately resourced, in terms of funding and personnel.

There is already extensive trade in food and agriculture between Australia and South-East Asia, underpinned by bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. The growth in populations and incomes within South-East Asia present enormous opportunities for Australia's agricultural industries. A key example of this is the Indonesian government's commitment to provide free lunches and milk to students across Indonesia. That's something that is an idea worth noting, both for the Indonesians and for us. Australia's agricultural industries are well-placed to contribute to this program if the Australian government and industry can successfully engage with their Indonesian counterparts.

Despite the development of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with the region, market access does remain an issue. Non-tariff barriers are significant and they are a growing problem, requiring constant attention and adequate resourcing by government. Australia's ability to remain vigilant in identifying non-trade barriers and persistence in addressing them will be vital to ensuring continued growth of trade with the region. Efforts to streamline trade through the harmonisation of regulations and standards will also be needed.

This inquiry highlighted the importance of developing relationships over the long term and promoting collaboration in sustained ways. Key objectives include collaboration between government and industry in Australia and closer collaboration with Australia's trading partners in the region. It is essential that government and business operate in ways that accommodate cultural expectations as well as economic considerations. Trade missions, joint ventures and promoting South-East Asian literacy will be fundamental to developing and maintaining these relationships.

Australian agricultural counsellors play a crucial role in developing trade and relationships. The committee has recommended that the Australian government provide more funding to maintain and enhance the agricultural counsellor network in South-East Asia and technical staff required to undertake negotiation and trade cooperation activities.

Collaboration with regional partners is vital to the food security of South-East Asia, especially in the areas of biosecurity, sustainability and climate change. A range of Australian agencies and organisations already contribute to capability building in the agriculture sector of South-East Asia, across projects addressing multiple issues. This effort should be sustained and expanded. Central to this is the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, both as a facilitator of capability building and as an agent of Australia's influence within the region. The committee has recommended additional funding for its work in South-East Asia. I would like to conclude with some words of thanks to those who contributed to the inquiry, including the ambassadors of the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of Thailand. The evidence presented allowed the committee to fulfil its task of furthering the work of the Moore report.

I also want to extend my thanks to my committee colleagues, including the deputy chair, Mr Rick Wilson, member for O'Connor, the member for Spence, the member for Macarthur, the member for Lyons, the member for Gilmore, the member for Dawson and the member for Casey. I note the member for Dawson, the member for Spence and the member for O'Connor are present in the chamber for the presentation of this important work, and I do sincerely thank them for their work. We have been a dynamic committee, producing three very important reports throughout the body of this parliament, and I think that work has really been done in a good spirit and most wholeheartedly, and I thank them for that. I would also like to thank the secretary for the committee, Fran Denny, and the inquiry secretary, Dr Bill Pender, ably assisted by Emily Meggs. This has been a great committee to work with and chair, and I sincerely thank those who have made our work possible. Thank you.

by leave—I rise today to fully endorse the comments of the chair and the report Trading north: inquiry into the role of Australian agriculture in Southeast Asian markets. This report builds on the seminal Moore report, which establishes a very firm and strong document to work from. The committee's efforts were based around enhancing and adding to that work. We already have very well-established, strong trading relationships with South-East Asia, but we can always improve those relations in the interests of both our nation and those nations in South-East Asia. As the report identified, food security is of critical importance to those Asian nations, and developing those enduring and ongoing trading relationships is just as important to them as it is to us.

I just want to do a series of thanks, particularly to those people who contributed to the report by making submissions and appearing before the inquiry to give evidence. I want to thank the committee secretariat on my personal behalf, noting the chair has already done that on behalf of the committee: Fran Denny, the committee secretary, Dr Bill Pender, the inquiry secretary, Emily Meggs and, let's not forget, Ben Vea Vea, who worked with us for most of this period. The chair has thanked the committee for the work on this particular report, but I want to go a step further and thank the chair for how she's conducted the committee over the term of this parliament. This will be the final report that we do. We did have some interesting times! Normally, ag is a pretty bipartisan and friendly committee. We had a short interlude where we weren't always getting on the best, but, to your great credit, Chair, you kept things on track, and we're all still good friends at the end of it. That's a great credit to you, so well done. To all the other committee members who are here today, thank you for the work that you've done over the course of this parliament. I really appreciate it, and I thoroughly endorse the report to the House.

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Northern Australia Joint Select Committee, I present the following reports: Northern Australia workforce development: final report; and Interim report energy, food and water security.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—As chair of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, I am pleased to table the committee's final report Northern Australia workforce development. The report seeks to address the multifaceted challenges we face in northern Australia. The shared goal is to create an intergenerational workforce that can harness the potential of our resources and of our people.

The report comprises six chapters and covers a range of issues. It makes a number of recommendations, including establishing an equivalent committee by the 48th parliament and extending the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility well beyond its current termination date of 30 June 2026, going back to a time when northern Australia was seen optimistically as a land of potential and opportunity. The reality has been more one of hard graft sandwiched between boom and bust cycles. In northern Australia, progress has been further stymied by a legacy of inadequate foundational infrastructure.

There are two key priorities that we focused on. First, we want to support industries that can sustain and develop the north, especially those industries that can have a direct contribution to Australia's northern economy. These include long-term mainstays such as mining, agriculture and tourism and emerging sectors such as renewable energy. Second, we want to leverage employment to underwrite and maintain social wellbeing and advancement. This application is particular to the many remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities spread over a geographically vast terrain of comparatively thinly populated territory. These communities constitute and validate Australia's occupation and sovereignty over much of the top half of the continent. An early paragraph from the report states:

… throughout remote Northern Australia there are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities living on land to which they have traditional associations and obligations. Australia's near neighbours in South-East Asia and the South Pacific assess Australia's maturity and evolution to some extent by reference to how successfully we are managing to weave these communities into the tapestry of our nation. Australia's own expectations in this regard are not being met, and the challenges being faced are complex and intractable. These challenges include social disengagement arising from the absence of social validation and associated loss of discipline and self-esteem which comes with not having sufficient, structured paid employment. Creating and maintaining jobs in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is an important end in itself, which justifies subsidisation or part-subsidisation of employment to counter the health, including mental health, and family dysfunction harms many Northern Australian communities are experiencing. Harnessing opportunities in private sector enterprises is obviously preferable wherever it can be facilitated.

On our various trips in northern Australia, we had a look at—particularly in the Northern Territory, where in the 1970s the Commonwealth was directly running the Northern Territory, Aboriginal people in the communities used to be paid money under what was called the training allowance scheme. This was usually referred to as a training wage. There was less access to the mainstream economy, and communities needed to be considerably more self-sufficient than they are now. Many communities had their own bakeries, market gardens and piggeries. Working in a designated community job for a number of hours a day was a social norm. By the end of 1973, all communities reported that the training wage was gone, replaced by the standard Australian entitlement to unemployment benefits—what some Aboriginal people right across northern Australia called 'sit down money'.

In subsequent years, a result of an innovative self-help initiative pioneered by various Indigenous communities in conjunction with a visionary federal public servant Nugget Coombs, the Community Development Employment program came into being—not to be confused with the similar sounding more recent measure of CDP. Both programs could not be more different from each other. Under CDEP, a lot of participants talked about how they forewent their entitlement to receive unemployment benefits. They would instead be employed by a local community council or organisation to work for a CDEP wage. The work hours didn't amount to full-time work and the work tasks were often mundane and repetitive. But there was value both in the outcome of the task and in the fact that Aboriginal adults were busy and engaged in work for the benefit of the community. As someone with a long connection to local government in the Tiwi Islands, I can attest to the difference CDEP work brought to the islands in pride and the simple visual of the communities.

CDEP has had its many critics, and Aboriginal communities noted that. There were those who said it just parked participants in dead-end positions rather than energising them to go out and look for so-called 'real' jobs. There were concerns about cost shifting, particularly in the context of taxpayers' money going to local government councils. It was said that those workers should have been paid from a separate local government funding bucket where the local community had an enterprise arm and employing CDEP workers in a shop, mud brick factory or art centre, expanding their working day by paying top-ups from enterprise income. The complaint was that the taxpayer was being dudded. We talked to the various people who'd worked with organisations like Bawinanga in Maningrida, and people were saying they were getting an unfair business advantage.

What really put the nail in the coffin of CDEP was that, at the commencement of the Northern Territory Intervention, it was clear that CDEP workers were avoiding being income managed and that was not acceptable. Things changed and welfare programs came in, first a remote jobs community program under Labor and then CDP under the coalition. In each instance, a lot of the participants were not treated as wage earners but instead were treated as human works in progress, being coaxed down a path towards a notional 'real' job while at the same time being the recipient of a government benefit with strings attached.

For the most part, there were no real jobs; instead, people were directed to undertake Work for the Dole under the guise of a mutual obligation as an after thought. These schemes and their associated strict compliance rules have been supervised by outside job placement contractors. These contractor businesses and agencies have made a fortune while the participants have lost heart, and we saw that right across a lot of the feedback we got in Western Australia, in the member for Durack's electorate, throughout the Northern Territory and also in north Queensland. Successive new generations of adults have come into the system who have never got to experience the self-esteem and community recognition which CDEP used to take for granted.

As the committee travelled across northern Australia, in particular the Northern Territory, we had a look at what has been achieved since the abandonment of this work program and what did we get. We got remote communities where endemic unemployment is baked into the social structure, where one aspirational training module leads to another. We got increased domestic violence. We got disengagement of young people, and the appalling associated scourge of youth suicide. We got a stream of failures of long-established community organisations, some of them long gone, some of them hanging on by a thread following contract after contract being awarded to outside.

But on the plus side, we got the preferential awarding of very limited employment opportunities to a minority made up of mainly the skilled and the gifted. It is great when the skilled and the gifted can find their way into the job market with the full-time 'real jobs' that are available. But for most, and what we saw right across northern Australia, the social crises our communities are experiencing don't arise from or relate to the skilled and the gifted; instead, they arise from and relate to the enormous cohort of the unskilled and the ungifted, a significant number of them challenged or even impaired. These are people who might never get into full-time 'real jobs' but who are nevertheless capable of undertaking honest, basic work of a kind which used to have a social status back in the CDEP days. We can go back to that model, as we saw across northern Australia. People who don't want to work can get sit-down money and remain under strict compliance rules, including income management through the BasicsCard. But, for people who do want to work, we as a country should make sure that they get CDEP-type jobs with local community employers. They should be able to do that even if their education and training background is poor. They should have the chance to do basic work under a 2020s equivalent of CDEP and be paid a non-income-managed basic wage.

This kind of subsidisation of work is taxpayer money well spent and serves as an important protective shield against a suite of toxic social harm. It is why we have recommended that the program to replace CDP, which replaced the RJCP in 2015, provides for a program participant to be paid wages under employment contracts with community based employers for stipulated work undertaken rather than being participants of a government transfer payment and for participants to be eligible for superannuation and top-up payments.

Most of the population of this country is concentrated in coastal towns and regions, but as a nation we see ourselves as an indivisible whole. If we want employment and economic growth across northern Australia, which is a reality for most Australians, we need to invest in and, yes, subsidise our remote communities to make them viable and functional. We have to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who live in these communities the support and the incentives to resist the temptation to go and live in towns. We need them to instead make a success of their communities on country. It starts with the dignity and recognition of employment in a basic job.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone. We had many submissions when we travelled through the Kimberley, through the Northern Territory and also through northern Australia. The member for Leichhardt certainly provided some fantastic meetings. As the deputy chair of the committee, I want to thank the member for Leichhardt. I also want to thank the member for Dawson and also my colleagues on the Labor side. The committee was one where there were very few disagreements. We had our disagreements, but we managed to work through them. The final report showed that there wasn't a dissenting report. I think that there is a commitment from all members of the committee to look at the issues right across northern Australia. Unless we fix what's happening across northern Australia, the rest of Australia will suffer. So I want to thank everyone who participated. There were many submissions. In my report, I touched on the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. When we looked across northern Australia, we looked across many of the incentives that can happen. I think we've got to bring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into an economic future. If we don't do that then we will lose another couple of generations. It's really important that Aboriginal people see themselves as part of the solution and not the problem. I think getting economic development in an honest and right way will mean there is a future, particularly for the younger generation.

I thank the staff. The member for Dawson, I know, will talk about them. There's been a huge changeover of secretariat staff, but I do want to thank them, going back to all of the early staff that travelled with us and the current staff. Whilst this is the final report on workforce development, there is an interim report on energy, food and water security, and that will be the next report. The other report that the committee will finalise next year, when parliament resumes, is the report that we will submit on the inquiry in terms of the cyclone reinsurance.

by leave—I fully support the fine words from the member for Lingiari. The Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia undertook a northern Australia workforce development inquiry. The committee received 83 submissions and held public hearings in eight different locations. We produced an outstanding report, with 12 commonsense, clear, concise recommendations. We've got a good group. We work together. We put the politics aside. We get the job done, because every single person in our committee wants to do the best they possibly can for northern Australia.

I acknowledge the chair, the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, and the fine work and leadership that she's given this committee. She's given everybody a fair go at all times. I thank you so much for that. The deputy chair, the member for Leichhardt, has indulged me with this today because he's retiring—Warren Entsch. Thank you very much, Warren. We are so fortunate to have members, including a chair and deputy chair, that know so much about northern Australia and who are so passionate about northern Australia. You can see that through this report and the delivery of it.

I'd also like to acknowledge the secretariat: the secretary, Alan Raine, and research officers Dr Ros Hewett and Jason See. Thank you for your good work. We really appreciate it.

I believe recommendation 1 in the report is the most important:

The committee recommends that the House of Representatives and the Senate reconstitute a Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia in the 48th Parliament.

Northern Australia contributes so much to the country's wealth, to our food supply, and even to our country's defence. Northern Australia is the land of opportunity. Another important recommendation is No. 11:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government, when developing and implementing measures to address housing shortages in Northern Australia, consider the provision of suitable housing for both families and people in other situations, including young, single workers in rural, remote and very remote communities.

I'd just like to explain to the House that in our travels we came across many First Nations communities where there were lots of houses for families. However, the families then became overcrowded, and some of the young people who had to do shift work or come back in from their job couldn't get the appropriate rest required. We think that, if we can get some more single workers' accommodation built, we'll have a lot better outcomes for some of those communities.

I would also like to just touch on something that is a little bit outside the scope of the inquiry, because it didn't quite fit within workforce development. But we did identify two things that are a big problem for First Nations people, in a couple of communities in particular, and those are rheumatic heart disease and strongyloidiasis, which is essentially worms. This is a big problem. You can't ask people to go and get a job and work if they're unwell. I've got a commitment from our chair and our deputy chair, and we're going to go through some of those recommendations and pass them on to Health and see if we can get a better outcome for some of those communities. I think we definitely should be able to do that. With those few words, I look forward to speaking to the report in more detail in the Federation Chamber. I fully endorse the report and recommend it to the House.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the following: Report 224: Agreement among the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion and a corrigendum to Report 221: BBNJ Agreement.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I am pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 224: Agreement among the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion, otherwise known as AUKUS.

The AUKUS agreement creates a framework to facilitate the communication and exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It also enables the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment from the UK and the US to Australia for conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines.

In considering this treaty, the committee held four hearings and travelled to Osborne in South Australia, and to HMAS Stirling and Henderson in Western Australia. Throughout the inquiry we heard evidence from a range of witnesses on a number of matters arising from the agreement.

The committee has determined the agreement to be in the nation's interest. Australia's acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines provides our nation with not only a strategic defence advantage but also an opportunity to grow Australian jobs, education and infrastructure.

Further, nuclear-powered submarines have a number of benefits over conventionally powered submarines, including being faster and more manoeuvrable.

While supporting Australia's ratification of the treaty, the report makes eight recommendations aimed to address a number of concerns that have been raised.

These recommendations include expanding and enhancing activities to inform the committee on how AUKUS will benefit Australia, and to help dispel a number of emerging AUKUS myths.

An example of AUKUS myth is that the agreement is a slippery slope towards nuclear weapons and that radioactive material contained within submarines' reactor units could be weaponised.

This is false. The ASA stated that the agreement was consistent with Australia's existing non-proliferation obligations and Australia's safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The ASA also emphasised that the nuclear material in US and UK nuclear-powered submarines was not in a form that could be used in nuclear weapons without further processing facilities that Australia does not have and will not acquire.

A further myth is that Australia will become a dumping ground for nuclear waste from the United Kingdom (UK) or the United States of America (US). This is also false. The committee was advised that the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Agency Act 2024 clarifies that storage and disposal in Australia of spent nuclear fuel that is not from an Australian submarine is prohibited.

During the inquiry the committee was pleased to learn that the agreement will result in the creation of approximately 20,000 jobs over 30 years and presents a unique opportunity to upskill Australia's domestic industrial workforce with unprecedented opportunities for trades and tertiary educated workers alike.

The jobs created throughout the life of the AUKUS program is good news for our country, as is the longevity of the employment opportunities that it will create.

To support the growth, the report recommends the launch of an AUKUS career and employment opportunities campaign and advocates for the enhancement of existing STEM and traditional trade engagement programs, particularly within our schools.

On another note, the committee recognised that an increased workforce and activities at each of the AUKUS sites will have a substantial impact on community infrastructure.

To ensure that local communities are supported, the report recommends that the Australian government partners with state and local governments to assist local communities with the infrastructure needs they may have.

The report also recommends the Australian Submarine Agency enhance its engagement and consultation with local traditional owner groups, First Nations people and local environmental groups.

Finally, the committee would like to extend thanks to all those involved who provided written and oral evidence to support the inquiry. In a robust democracy such as Australia, this inquiry has allowed throughout the submissions and the hearings process for a variety of voices to be heard.

The committee would also like to thank the personnel who facilitated the inspections at Osborne, HMAS Stirling and Henderson as well as the committee secretariat.

The committee supports the treaty considered in this report and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. On behalf of the committee, I commend this unanimous report to the House.

by leave—There has arguably not been a more important agreement to come before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in this parliament. It is, of course, the AUKUS agreement between the three great nations of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. As members would remember, the trilateral announcement was made on 15 September 2021, brokered by the former coalition government and supported by the now government. On 14 March 2023, leaders of the AUKUS nations agreed on the optimal pathway to achieve the goal. That goal is conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.

The committee's inquiry sought to ensure that the agreement was fit for purpose and was in the best interest of Australia. It is a very good thing to be able to report that the committee has confirmed that this will be a critical step to solidify our national security. The inquiry and its expert witnesses told us what we already knew—that we are facing the most complex and challenging strategic circumstances in our region since the Second World War and that submarines possess a stealth and lethality to deter and destroy a potential enemy before it reaches our shores.

Nuclear propulsion offers key advantages over its diesel electric predecessors, including that the time a vessel can state submerged is limited only by the need to restock provisions for the crew. It can move faster and with greater agility and is able to operate undetected. Of course, there are provisions within the agreement preventing the use of nuclear technology for anything other than power and propulsion, and the committee welcomes these provisions.

We also agreed on a recommendation that further work be done to bring Australians along on the journey with expanded and enhanced community education activities on the importance of AUKUS. There are also important guidelines around safety and waste disposal with the reassurance that the nuclear fuel cells will be provided in a complete and welded form as they will remain during their lifetime. But it is noted the government has more work to do on ensuring there is a solid plan to deal with the high-level waste that will exist at end of life.

There are a few other key concerns that should be highlighted. The first is the skills shortages built around the country in many different industries but will be especially problematic in the brand new industry of nuclear submarine building. If we are to begin the building the first SSN-AUKUS in South Australia by the end of the decade, we are going to require significant investment in skills and training for those key skilled workers we will require. Remember, this is going to create 20,000 jobs. The committee has included a recommendation that the government launches a career and employment opportunities program to capture interest in young people and incentivise their study at university, TAFE and other higher education providers. We also must raise concern about the personnel numbers that we're going to require. Defence told us that the Navy would need to increase the figure of 900 submariners to 3,000 by the early 2050s. Given the current inability to retain ADF personnel and attract new ones, this will need a lot of attention.

There have been serious concerns about the lack of work being done to prepare the areas surrounding Osborne in South Australia and HMAS Stirling and Henderson in Western Australia. We're yet to see enough work in these local communities to address the infrastructure impacts that will come. For example, despite commencement of Submarine Rotational Force—West in 2027 being less than four years away, the government confirmed earlier this year that works to uplift HMAS Stirling to nuclear readiness so as to host US and UK nuclear submarines wouldn't start until next year. Due to its tight timeline, the project has been labelled high risk. Even representatives from the United States have raised concerns about WA's preparedness for AUKUS. It is telling that these concerns were held across the committee from both sides of the chamber. We urge the government and we will work with the government to urgently increase its efforts to address them.

To have an agreement that allows the sharing of such valuable information and technology between the UK, US and Australia is absolutely groundbreaking. It will increase our ability to respond effectively if the worst were ever to occur. The coalition appreciates the government's commitment to AUKUS. We urge the government to do everything they can to ensure its success, and we are committed to working with them. I want to thank the chair, who has done a lot of work—a fantastic job—here. I also want to thank the committee, the secretariat, our partners from around the world, and the Royal Australian Navy, who do a great job. I look forward to working with the chair into the future to ensure that AUKUS is everything it should be.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's annual report of committee activities 2023-2024.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Section 31 of the Intelligence Services Act requires that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report annually on its activities, and this report details the committee's work in the financial year ending 30 June 2024. I've said this before and I'll say it again: the PJCIS is the busiest committee in this building. I've chaired numerous committees and I've sat on many others. This one is the busiest.

Australia is facing the most geopolitically unstable period since World War II, with threats and competition, terror and conflict escalating at every turn. It is right, therefore, that Australia's leading legislative and civilian oversight mechanism, the PJCIS, is busy with a program of work that goes to the heart of our national security and intelligence architecture.

Over the review period, in addition to its ongoing oversight activities, the committee reviewed a range of prospective and existing national security legislation. The year also saw reforms proposed or implemented that affected the committee's work, including reforms in relation to terrorist organisations and citizenship cessation, as well as changes to the committee itself.

Following the commencement of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Act 2023 in August 2023, the committee's membership increased from 11 to 13 members. On 14 September 2023, two new members were appointed by the House of Representatives. The committee then had 12 members and one vacancy for the remainder of the period, as it does still to this day. These 12 comprise five senators and seven members of the House of Representatives. The act also amended the quorum for the committee from six to seven members.

Over the review period, the committee presented 14 reports, which included one annual report, two reviews of intelligence agencies' administration and expenditure, three reviews of the listing of terrorist organisations, four statutory reviews and four bill inquiries referred by ministers.

The committee held 50 meetings and briefings, including eight public hearings, which supported the committee's work across 21 inquiries in total during that period. I'm going to say that again: 21 inquiries. The PJCIS is a very busy committee.

Notable reviews and inquiries concluded during the review period included the review of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which banned the use and trade of symbols associated with listed terrorist organisations. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for home affairs and the member for Berowra for their support as we fought for and secured an extension of that ban to the Nazi salute.

We reviewed amendments to citizenship cessation provisions under the Citizenship Act and we reviewed the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme of 2018, in which the committee recommended significant changes to improve the effectiveness of the scheme.

On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank all those who made contributions to the committee's inquiries and reviews during the 2023-24 financial year. Industry, academia, the Public Service, Defence, intelligence, law enforcement and partner nations provided valuable insight and information, and I thank them for their valuable contributions and candour. I acknowledge the member for Wills, who chaired the committee during the period covered by this report, and thank all committee members for their constructive and bipartisan approach over the past year.

I want to do something which we do not do often enough in this place. I want to thank the men and women of our defence, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Now, the men and women of our Defence Force, rightly so, often are acknowledged in this place, and I'll acknowledge them again—the member for Herbert and many others. But we don't often—in fact, very, very rarely do we—as MPs, acknowledge the service of our foreign intelligence services and of our domestic intelligence services; in fact, all of the personnel that the PJCIS oversee.

I want to send a big shout-out to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in particular. They are the brave men and women whose vigilance, expertise and deep love of country protect Australians and secure our future. On behalf of the PJCIS, the people of Fisher in my electorate, the Australian parliament and the Australian people, I say thank you for your service.

I also would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank the outstanding work of the PJCIS's secretariat, one of whom—in fact, the leader of the secretariat—is at the table this evening. This is a committee, as I said, that is a very, very busy committee. That makes us busy, but it also makes the secretariat incredibly busy, and having to work under immense pressure, often, to meet what are very unrealistic deadlines placed on the committee by government.

And, just on that point, I want to take the opportunity—probably the last opportunity in this parliament—to recommend to government, whether it be this outgoing government or a new incoming government, to seriously consider, given the pressures that I hope I have indicated that this committee operates under, providing more appropriate staffing support to the members who serve on this committee. Now, all of the members who serve on this committee, and senators, are, under the Intelligence Services Act, required to obviously keep confidential the sort of information that we are privy to, which is to top secret level, which means that not even our staff are able to even handle these documents. So what we find is that members of the PJCIS have to do everything themselves, and we get no staffing support—zip, nothing, nada. Our staff cannot be involved. I want to encourage the government to look at providing appropriate staff to members of this committee, at the very least to the chair and the deputy chair, staff that have the appropriate security clearances, as they do in other countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.

This is a committee that oversees and keeps Australians safe, and, if governments of either persuasion are serious about having civilian and parliamentary oversight of our intelligence agencies, then they will appropriately equip the people who serve on this committee to do their job. Without that assistance, without that appropriate support, we cannot do our job properly. I want that placed on the record. With that, I commend the report to the House.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights—parliamentary joint committee—human rights scrutiny report: report 11 of 2024.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I'm pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 11th scrutiny report of 2024. The member for Fisher, who previously spoke, spoke of the hardworking Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. While I acknowledge that that committee is an outstanding committee, I think the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights certainly does an enormous amount of work as well. The fact that we have done 11 scrutiny reports this year and 14 last year is a reflection of the hard work of our committee. In this report the committee has considered 16 new bills and 56 new legislative instruments. It has substantively commented on four bills and deferred consideration of three bills.

In this report the committee commented on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. This bill seeks to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 to require that providers of age restricted social media platforms take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 years from having accounts with such a platform. It would impose significant civil penalties for failure to comply with this requirement.

By requiring providers to determine the age of all service users of all ages, this would engage and limit the right to privacy and potentially the right to freedom of expression with respect to all persons. If providers required users to provide an official government proof of age document, this may also have a discriminatory impact on people from certain backgrounds in practice, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who may be more likely to have a birth certificate.

The committee considers that, in the absence of requirements for data minimisation and privacy protection in establishing age verification mechanisms, there is a significant risk that an internet user's privacy may be arbitrarily interfered with by service providers who are required, as a matter of law, to establish an age verification service and that users may be dissuaded from accessing such services, which would impermissibly limit the right to freedom of expression. The committee notes imposing a blanket ban on all children aged under 16 years from accessing certain online platforms would provide no scope to consider the individual circumstances of different children and no recognition of the concept of the evolving capacity of children. The committee has made some recommendations which may assist the proportionality of the bill and otherwise draws its human rights concerns to the attention of the minister and the parliament.

The committee also commented on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024. This bill would enable the minister to prohibit certain items in immigration detention facilities. It would also expand an authorised officer's power to search, screen and seize prohibited things in relation to immigration detention facilities and detainees without a warrant.

The committee previously considered a substantially similar bill in 2020. The committee considers in particular that the broad scope of the proposed power to declare items as prohibited things means that there is a risk that the powers could be exercised in a manner which is not compatible with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression and the right of detainees not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with family. The committee therefore has made some recommendations that may assist with the human rights compatibility of these measures, and I note that the government has made comments publicly that would align the government's intentions with the recommendations, so that is certainly welcome by the committee. The committee also recommends that the statement of compatibility be updated.

The committee has also commented on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, which seeks to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to introduce gift caps and electoral expenditure caps and reduce the donations disclosure threshold and seeks to increase public funding to incumbent parties and candidates. The committee recognises the intention of the measure is to limit the influence of big donors and allow for more individuals and entities to participate in the political debate, which may promote a number of rights, including the right to take part in public affairs, the right to freedom of expression and the right to equality and non-discrimination. However, no information is provided in the explanatory materials as to whether this may disproportionately impact the ability of Independents and smaller parties to receive gifts to facilitate campaigning. The committee is therefore seeking further information from the assistant minister in order to assess the human rights compatibility of these and other measures in the bill.

I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. I thank the hardworking secretariat, who have served the committee in 2024 with distinction and an incredible work ethic, making the chair look half competent occasionally. On that note, I thank them for their work and I wish them all a good, restful break after our committee hearings that are occurring over the next few weeks.

On that note I commend the committee's scrutiny Report 11 of 2024 to the House.

Context counts. Right now, Australia is amidst an energy crisis. As a result, the Australian people are becoming poorer, the Australian economy is becoming weaker and, as a country, we are becoming increasingly dependent on foreign powers when it comes to our energy security. This is important when we are discussing the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2024, which is before the House. Its purpose is to separate the Australian Energy Regulator from the ACCC.

On prices, let us not forget that Australians are right now paying among the highest prices in the world. They were promised a $275 reduction in their household power bills by the Albanese government, but they are paying up to $1,000 more than they were promised. Every single week since this government has been in power, we have had an additional 600 families go to their energy retailers and sign up for hardship arrangements. This is how bad it is right now due to energy prices. We have also seen almost 25,000 companies go insolvent—businesses having to close their doors—and one of the reasons that are driving their insolvencies is the cost of energy. We have seen an enormous drop, of about 6.4 per cent, in productivity in this country, again, in part, driven by the exorbitant cost of energy. Prices just keep going up. This is part of the context in which this bill is put before the parliament.

Then we look at the issue of reliability. The Albanese government promised a secure electricity grid and supply of resources for industry, but what we have is ongoing warnings, including in the last few days, from the Australian Energy Market Operator, saying that we are looking at looming blackouts. Indeed, today we have blackouts. In Wagga Wagga, there are about 6,000 households today where electricity's gone out. There are blackouts. This is the condition of the electricity grid today. This is part of the context in which this bill is being debated in this parliament.

It's only going to get worse. We found out only 2½ weeks ago, from the independent analysis by Frontier Economics, that the government's purported electricity grid transformation to net zero is actually going to cost five times as much as the minister had been telling the Australian people. He'd said it was going to cost $122 billion. It's going to cost $642 billion. That's a $500 billion black hole. Things are only going to get worse and more expensive.

At the same time, this government says that it plans to close 90 per cent of baseload power in this country within the next 10 years. At the very same time, they are suffocating the supply of gas. At the very same time, we see stalling investment in renewables and we wonder why the grid is unreliable. We wonder why industry is screaming out for energy. This is part of the context for this bill.

Then you look at emissions. By the end of the week, we'll find out the trajectory of emissions and what's really happened, but the minister has already confirmed that they're not going to reach their 43 per cent target by 2030. We knew that last year and we knew that the year before. Already we've had the minister come in and legislate in this parliament—embed in law—a target they cannot meet. They've had 2½ years, and still to this day, even their rosiest scenario of achieving everything they possibly wanted from all of their new policies they've sprinkled on the Australian people without a mandate, they will not achieve their 43 per cent emissions reduction target. This is part of the context of the bill we speak about today.

Why this context counts is because we are in the final sitting of parliament for this year. We do not know if indeed this is the final sitting of the parliament in this term of government. Amidst an energy crisis—where literally the lights are out, prices are soaring and regional Australians are crying because they feel as though they have been treated with reckless indifference through a rollout of utility-scale infrastructure without any social licence—this government's decision is to table one piece of legislation in this portfolio. Does this legislation go to prices? No. Reliability? No, not that either. Emissions reductions, maybe? No. How about social licence? No. All of the most pressing priorities of this portfolio are completely ignored by the one piece of legislation this government decides to table in the parliament in the final sitting of the year—possibly the final sitting in its term of government. Instead it goes to a matter of bureaucratic restructuring, an organisational restructure to separate the Australian Energy Regulator from the ACCC. This is not the priority.

You say to the people of Wagga Wagga today, who are in the dark, that the federal government is in here talking about a restructure of a part of the Public Service, implying that's the priority. Do the Albanese government not question why they are getting feedback from major independent think tanks and pollsters that they're not focusing on the priorities that are important to the Australian people? This is a perfect example of why the Australian people are looking at the Albanese government and saying, 'Things are tougher now than they were a few years ago, and this government is not tackling the real issues in the real economy, in real households and in real businesses.'

One may well argue that there are logical merits to the bill that the government has put on the table here in this parliament, but this bill goes to an organisational restructure. This week, the minister himself put out a media release announcing:

The Albanese Government has commenced a review into how Australia's largest electricity grid and market will operate in the coming decades …

Let's think about this. The responsible minister has just announced a full review of the electricity market. Anybody who has had any experience whatsoever in doing reviews of markets and of businesses knows full well that there's a rule: structure follows strategy, and the strategy comes from such reviews. So, if indeed the minister is appointing this panel to do a review on the National Electricity Market—the NEM—that review would be saying, 'Here's how the NEM needs to work in the future.' In order to execute a strategy to deliver that future vision, you need an organisational structure. The organisational structure is meant to be established to enable that plan. But this minister is doing it the other way around. The minister is now wanting to restructure the Public Service to deliver on a future market design when he doesn't even know what it looks like yet. He is doing it the wrong way around. You do not have structure leading strategy unless you are a big government and your mindset is just entirely focused on the ins and outs and minutiae of Public Service bureaucracy in big government. Maybe that is a hint as to why we have such a problem when it comes to our energy system.

And so I am here to confirm that the coalition will be opposing the amendments to this bill, and we do so asking this government to think very clearly about what is happening in the real Australia and what is happening in households, in businesses and in regional Australia. Their focus should be on taking urgent action to help those in need and fix a crisis of their making, not restructuring a part of bureaucracy. On the extent to which such restructuring might be necessary, get your plan, vision and review done. Do any restructuring based on what the future design is, not the other way around.

Debate adjourned.

I rise to speak on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024. This bill amends the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 and introduces new requirements for designated relevant employers—employers with 500 or more employees—to commit to achieve or, at a minimum, improve on and report to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency on measurable gender equality targets. These targets are proposed to fall under any of the six gender equality indicators, and the bill requires large employers to select three gender equality targets and report on their progress to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency each year. In their third year of reporting, they must show they have achieved their targets or, at a minimum, improved before selecting a further three targets to achieve in the following three years.

This bill also amends the definition of 'relevant employer' to explicitly include subsidiaries of parent companies with 100 or more employees and clarifies that in a corporate structure a parent corporation is also taken to employ each of the employees of any of its subsidiaries. Where an employer have not met their selected gender equality targets or demonstrated improvements within the relevant period of three years, they are considered to have failed to comply with their obligations under the act. Under the Workplace Gender Equality Procurement Principles, relevant employers seeking to supply goods or services to the government at or above $80,000 must provide a certificate of compliance issued by the agency as part of the procurement process. Consequently, such employers would be unable to provide the compliance certificate.

This bill places onerous financial implications on businesses. The legislation will affect over 1,650 of Australia's largest companies by potentially precluding them from supplying goods or services to the Commonwealth government at or above $80,000 in critical areas including agriculture forestry and fishing, construction, education and training, manufacturing and mining. The provisions in this bill significantly undermine businesses and risk important procurement required for critical areas like national security.

This bill introduces a new power for the minister to set targets and rules in relation to the selection of the gender equality targets. This bill gives personal power to the minister to set the category of targets that can be selected and to set the number of targets businesses are required to select—it's getting more and more convoluted. The menu of targets will be set out in an instrument to the act and will not be on the face of this legislation. This is government overreach. The minister has personal powers to set targets and rules of their own choosing with no scrutiny from businesses impacted. This creates the possibility of an even more onerous compliance burden on businesses.

The bill introduces substantial compliance requirements on businesses. The reporting requirements add red tape to the operations of Australia's biggest corporations, driving down productivity in an economy that is already struggling under the compliance burden of the Albanese government's radical industrial relations and energy policies that the member for Fairfax was just talking about.

Adding compliance burdens to business will also inevitably be inflationary, adding to the Albanese government's homegrown inflation crisis. It's estimated that this bill will create further compliance issues for over 1,650 of Australia's largest companies.

Should the government want to go further, guess who we think is next in line after big business? It's small and medium enterprises—millions of them around the country—who are already struggling with significant red tape and compliance burdens under this Albanese Labor government.

The government are bringing on debate on this bill without scrutiny. They are bringing on debate when we should be waiting to hear from the committee inquiry. The committee isn't due to report back until late January next year.

The Workplace Gender Equality Agency should be focused on positively encouraging businesses to promote gender equality, not threatening them with losing procurement prospects. It is on this basis that the coalition opposes this bill.

Debate adjourned.

The coalition will be opposing this bill. Labor's Future Made in Australia policy is about building bureaucracies not businesses. The only thing Labor is making in Australia is more inflation. With inflation rising in Australia and around the world it is time to restore the budget to a more sustainable footing. Australia's economy has gone from leading the world under the coalition to trailing the world under Labor. We are at the back of the pack on interest rates, on inflation, on productivity and on growth.

The coalition will not support this bill, which subsidises businesses for the costs of Labor's bad policies on workplace relations, on environmental approvals, on the safeguard mechanism and on company tax. The best cost-of-doing-business relief Australians could hope for is a change in government.

With regard to production tax credits, this policy does not deliver widespread tax relief. Indeed, it will not provide a cent of tax relief to businesses for years and it costs billions of dollars into the 2040s. Labor's own impact analysis shows that just to apply for these tax credits will cost $100,000 in the first year and hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual costs over the duration of their operation. Just to receive these tax credits, a business has to jump through significant red tape with government, with the Clean Energy Regulator, with the department of industry and with ARENA, and that's before you even get to the tax office.

In addition, businesses seeking to access these credits will be hostage to the same community benefits principles that are embedded in Labor's entire Future Made in Australia plan. What are these? We don't know. The Treasurer will make them up via regulation, but we have heard warnings loud and clear about what these mean. We've seen it in state Labor governments: it's a back door for the CFMEU. Under this policy, if there is no union agreement, there is no tax credit. This is not good policy. This legislation doubles down on the first Future Made in Australia Act by putting the Treasurer and his department in the position to decide whether a sector of the Australian economy deserves investment.

The Treasurer, who has never run a business and has described his private sector career as 'six long, long months', will now be setting the conditions for businesses to operate and will be seeking funding under this plan. Departments will consider the investment against a very narrow set of criteria and have provided evidence to Senate estimates that key investments for Australia's energy future and sovereign capability—be they carbon capture and storage, gas, blue hydrogen, uranium or nuclear—will not be eligible and have not been considered as part of the Future Made in Australia policy. This is not the way to build a healthy and productive economy. The Business Council of Australia has warned that these procurement rules are at risk of enabling this behaviour, while they risk subsidising businesses Australia would never have comparative advantage in. The BCA has also been clear that this is not the best path ahead. The best path is to get back to basics and get the fundamentals right.

Labor's second-term economic plan is unravelling. This is Labor's second-term economic agenda and it is going about as well as it's first-term economic plan. The Productivity Commission says a $1 billion commitment to make more solar panels in Australia under Anthony Albanese's Future Made in Australia program should be retrospectively subjected to a tougher national interest framework test. Allowing sectors to bypass the National Interest Framework process would undermine its role in disciplining spending, yet Labor are already breaking their own rules when it suits them. Key elements of Labor's Future Made in Australia agenda, including the PsiQuantum contract, bypass the National Interest Framework and sector assessments. There are serious questions to answer about the decision to make this investment, with it becoming increasingly clear that Minister Husic decided to invest in this business independently of any departmental appraisal, analysis or recommendation.

The coalition is not the only one raising concerns with Labor's economic plan. Danielle Wood, productivity commissioner and the government's key economic advisor appointed by the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has said:

If we are supporting industries that don't have long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost. It diverts resources, that's workers and capital, away from other parts of the economy where they might generate high value uses.

We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.

…   …   …

Your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap.

When asked whether Future Made in Australia contained tax reform, Ms Wood explicitly said that it is not tax reform. On alternative policies, including lowering of the corporate tax rate, Ms Wood offered that it would make us more internationally competitive.

Danielle Wood is not alone, with former Productivity Commission chairman Mr Gary Banks describing FMIA as a 'fool's errand' that risks repeating mistakes of the past by propping up political favourites. Indeed, he said:

Seeking to obtain benefits to society through subsidies for particular firms or industries, including in the form of tax concessions, has proven a fool's errand, particularly where the competitive fundamentals are lacking.

Mr Banks likened the scheme to Hotel California, saying many will enter program but few will ever leave. In response to this, the Prime Minister called Mr Banks a flat-earther. Another eminent economist, Professor Richard Holden, defended Mr Banks, saying that the Prime Minister's insult was wrong and uncalled for. Steven Hamilton, an independent economist, has said:

There are many problems with industry policy, and this is a big one. It's why I tend to favour more neutral investment incentives like a lower corporate tax rate or accelerated depreciation. I thought we'd learned these lessons, but apparently not. The bad old days are back.

Australians want and deserve something better. The coalition, in government, will do three things. We will steer our nation out of our current domestic crisis. We will not simply talk about the challenges of our time; we will meet them head-on with action to carve out a more secure future. Most importantly, we will make the decisions that set up our nation for success for generations to come. The coalition is working to ensure Australia can play to its strengths.

We are looking to build a nation which is a mining, manufacturing and agricultural powerhouse and a leader in technology—and of innovation. We are seeking to help build a nation where the tax contributions from surging industries help us to build the infrastructure of the future and sustain our safety net, our health system and our aged-care system.

We want Australia to be a place where homeownership is possible for every Australian. We want Australia to be a place where the ability to buy a house is not something within the reach of a few who can rely on the bank of mum and dad, but something assured for the hardworking many. This requires strong economic management. That's why a Dutton led coalition will get Australia back on track by delivering a back-to-basics economic agenda. That is how we will restore our standard of living and ensure future prosperity.

We will get our economy back to basics by fighting high prices and interest rates first. We will then wind back regulatory roadblocks, boost productivity and deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes. We will also stand up for consumers, small businesses and farmers by delivering stronger penalties for anticompetitive behaviour in the supermarket and hardware sectors. We will support Australians to build businesses, not bureaucracies. We will ensure that Australians have more affordable and reliable energy by rejecting the government's reckless renewables-only approach.

We will restore the dream of homeownership and unlock up to 500,000 homes by investing in shovel-ready infrastructure that will enable homes to be delivered faster. We will reduce migration and place a two-year ban on foreign investors buying existing homes. We will tackle union corruption that is continuing to drive up building costs, and we will take action to make our communities safer, including online. A Dutton led coalition will get Australia back on track.

I'm really proud today to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024, as introduced by the Treasurer. It's remarkable to see how engaged the shadow Treasurer is with this very important piece of legislation, as he clearly wasn't able to make it tonight. It's only 10 past seven in the main chamber here in the Commonwealth of Australia, yet the shadow Treasurer is not here to deliver the shadow Treasurer's comments on this important bill. I thank the member for Herbert for his contribution. He's drawn a few long bows in that contribution. Towards the end he did mention the CFMEU but in the start he mentioned the CFMEU and how somehow this is related to them, which of course it is not, far from it. The member for Herbert, like most of those opposite, is deeply confused around production tax credits. Just as the shadow Treasurer was not engaged tonight on this really important topic for the resources sector of Australia, he was perhaps less engaged on this topic on budget night. Within a few hours of the Treasurer announcing this policy, the Liberal member for Hume breathlessly announced there'll be no support for a production tax credit system that the resources sector of this country has asked for, has helped the government develop and indeed is calling for.

The previous speaker went through a list of quotes, so I might do to same thing at this moment in time. As I said, the government worked extensively with industry since coming to government on establishing how we would best help an industry, the critical minerals and rare earths industry, that is subject to enormous international pressures, not of their making, not of our government's making; indeed, not even—funnily enough—of the previous government's making. These are international pressures that exist within a time in our globe that has to withstand great power competition.

In that light, what has been said as we develop the production tax incentive? Well, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies said:

After months of detailed consultation with industry, companies and key stakeholders, it is clear that this vital assistance has been well designed and will be effective.

I refer the member for Herbert to that quote. The AMEC goes on to say:

It provides confidence to the growing critical minerals sector and demonstrates to the market and investors, that Australia is open for business and serious about developing a value-added industry right here in Australia.

So is the government, and clearly the opposition is not. AMEC may have been thinking about the opposition when they went on to say:

Talking a good game isn't good enough. We need real action, and the Production Tax Incentive is exactly what industry has been seeking.

I will table these comments after I read them into Hansard for the benefit of the members, if they want to call their leader and member for Hume and ask them respectfully to reconsider their rash decision of budget night.

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, a well-known friend of the LNP, said:

This measure recognises the Federal Government's commitment to supporting industry to level the playing field in what is an intensely competitive global market. Passage of the legislation would set an important investment signal for further value adding activities and provide certainty to industry.

Australian Strategic Materials has a site that I visited recently with the member for Parkes, a Nationals member who did a fabulous valedictory speech recently. They are developing a remarkable project at Dubbo on the east coast, a rare earths mine-to-refinery project, one of the few on the east coast. You'd think that would get a bit of support from the Liberals National Party; of course, it does not. However, Rowena Smith, the CEO of Australian Strategic Minerals said:

Australian Strategic Materials Limited (ASM or the Company) welcomes the proposed production tax credit for critical minerals as an essential policy development to reduce costs and improve project returns, supporting the development of a robust and sustainable critical minerals industry.

Ardea has a project in Kalgoorlie, 'The federal government's support for the Australian resources sector through initiatives such as the production tax incentive will assist Ardea in being even more cost competitive with our global peers and is very much appreciated.' Thanks to Ardea for providing that feedback as well, and the member for O'Connor might be interested in their views. Wesfarmers as reported in The Australian newspaper this morning—it might have been the morning before, pardon me—has also supported the production tax credit and are quoted as saying:

Australia is well-positioned to support global decarbonisation goals and be a high quality and reliable manufacturer for the global electric vehicle supply chain.

The federal government's targeted initiative benefits those companies that are prepared to take a long-term view, investing capital to develop new production operations and creating many jobs, often for years before finally moving into production and seeing returns.

That's Wesfarmers, a great Western Australian company doing great things.

In Queensland, of course, there are a number of critical minerals projects. There's Alpha HPA, which produces high-purity alumina in Gladstone, in a strong National area; we've visited; you know I've visited. Alpha HPA has said this in a statement that they put on the record, and it's on their website but I'm going to table it anyway:

Alpha HPA commends the legislation designed to bolster Australia's standing as a global leader in critical mineral processing and manufacturing. This initiative aligns with Alpha HPA's mission to sustainably produce high-purity aluminium materials that support the world's transition to decarbonisation.

Mr Kairaitis, the managing director of Alpha HPA, has said:

We consider the Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive as a positive catalyst for Australian manufacturing, offering tangible support for companies like Alpha HPA that are adding downstream value to Australia's abundant critical mineral resources.

So perhaps the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition might want to talk to colleagues in Queensland about Alpha HPA's use of the production tax credit.

There's Australia Vanadium Limited, a really important company creating vanadium and vanadium flow batteries, a really spectacular new technology. Their CEO, Graham Arvidson, has said:

It is highly encouraging to see the Australian Government recognising and supporting the important role critical mineral developers play in the economic growth of the country and the benefits these mineral projects and their downstream industries bring to the regions in which they operate. AVL has been encouraged by the level of consultation that the Government has undertaken with industry to reach this stage.

I think Mr Arvidson makes a really important point: how important these projects are in the regions in which they exist—in the regions right around this country. I table these documents, to the Clerk.

There's no end of members in this place letting us all know how important mining is for the regions; yet, when the mining industry comes to us and wants help to develop a means of supporting and developing an emerging industry, like the rare earths industry, regional members on the other side of the parliament are simply totally absent. They do not engage in this debate in any meaningful sense—and we just saw the contribution from the member for Herbert. There's no contribution from the shadow Treasurer. I know he's not in a regional area, but he sure speaks for many people in this place that are. They are turning their backs on regional communities that have these really exciting but really challenging projects that are subject to those global headwinds that we see before us and that have been around now for a few years. We want to see this industry get through it.

This bill today, for production tax credits for critical minerals, is a cornerstone of the Future Made in Australia plan. We know how important this industry and the resources industry as a whole has been to the nation's prosperity for many decades. It has powered us through a global pandemic. It has seen us through economic downturns. Of course, there are other countries that have vast resources and geologies, though none quite the same as us. We're not alone in relation to these critical minerals, yet we are in the best place to take advantage of our people, our skills, our existing resources industry, our traditional resources industry, and, of course, our unique and very special geology.

As we all know, taxes and revenues from the resources industry pay for our roads, our hospitals, our schools and our Defence Force. They create hundreds of thousands of highly-paid and skilled jobs and have for generations. This can't go on forever, if we don't support these new and emerging industries. We cannot turn our backs on the issues that are facing the critical minerals and rare earths industries. We can't just put our feet up and think that the job is done and we can all move on and somehow suppose that the critical minerals industry will get there on its own.

Indeed, since we have had a resources industry, government has played a part in developing it. If we look to the start of the iron ore industry, we had Sir Charles Court, a great Western Australian premier. We had Sir David Brand, after whom my seat is named, who went to Japan to get the deals, to get the investment, and came to this place to speak to Robert Menzies to make him change the ban on the export of iron ore, and then that happened and they drew investment from Japan to start the iron ore industry. Then there was Bob Hawke having Rio Tinto bring Chinese investors over to invest in the iron ore industry further down the track and the great Mount Channar development in Western Australia. John Howard played a really important part in getting the LNG industry in Western Australia going. There is always government work.

There are state agreements too. We are working with the states on common-use infrastructure facilities and feasibility studies about what will work best and what will be the best way we can combine federal capital with state government and territory government capital to make common-use infrastructure for the critical minerals industry that will be of vital importance for the decarbonisation of not only our country but others, whether that be through the creation of batteries for electric vehicles or for grid-level storage like the vanadium flow batteries that are being built right now in Western Australia. There would be no solar panels or wind turbines without critical minerals and rare earths. There would be no mobile devices, stainless steel, mineral cosmetics and many other things that critical minerals and rare earths go into. It's very important.

Another part of this vast story of what critical minerals and rare earths can be in this country is that, in addition to decarbonisation, they are vital to our national security. They are vital to the national security of partners like the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and the Republic of Korea. Critical minerals and refined rare earths are essential inputs into most modern military equipment, including combat aircraft, submarines and drones. There are no Virginia class submarines, F35 fighter jets, missile guidance systems or night-vision goggles without critical minerals and rare earths. An F35 needs more than 400 kilograms of rare earth elements and a Virginia class submarine needs more than four tonnes.

We have done untold amounts of work since coming to government, including on many international relationships and memorandums of understanding as well as actual agreements that do things and finance agreements with projects such as the Arafura rare earths mine and refinery project in Alice Springs, which will be a game changer for that great city in the heart of our nation. But what do those opposite want to do? They are turning their backs on the resources sector. They are anti Western Australia, anti Queensland and anti Alice Springs. The member for Hume and others have said this is 'welfare for billionaires'. They should speak to the hundreds of workers who work in, and want to continue to work in, this industry, that want to build a new industry for the national benefit, national interest and, indeed, national security, as I have said.

Joe Hockey once said this place in the worst budget ever delivered that Australia is a nation of lifters, not leaners. Well, the Liberal and National parties are not anymore. When it comes to critical minerals and rare earths and Australia's role in securing global supply chains of the minerals needed to secure our energy future and our national security, the opposition are firmly of the belief that Australia should just lean back and let everyone else do the work. Under the opposition, our resources sector would be the leaners, not the lifters. Under the opposition, Australia would not step up and grasp this golden opportunity to take on the responsibility that history and geology is placing on our shoulders. No, they think they can sit back and let everyone else do the job. They always say they want to get out of the way. Sometimes you have to do some work and you have to put your back into it to help industry. With an industry that has seen enormous challenges because of the global market dominance of one player, those opposite just want to go home, put their feet up and hope for the best. That's not good enough. That's not good enough for the Australian people. It sure as heck isn't enough for the Albanese Labor government. We are leaning into this. We will create a future made in Australia, and we will create a critical minerals and rare earths industry right here in Australia. I seek leave to table the documents.

Leave granted.

I rise tonight to make a contribution on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. As we've heard from the minister in her contribution, this is entirely relevant to my seat of Flynn in Central Queensland and particularly the greater Gladstone area, given the fact that Stanwell Corporation, a Queensland GOC, has put forward a proposal to build a hydrogen plant in Gladstone and produce associated products. I will get into that further in a little bit, but first of all I will give an overview of exactly what this bill is.

This bill seeks to implement the government's Future Made in Australia production tax credits for green hydrogen and critical minerals. The bill puts significant compliance obligations on businesses eligible for either a hydrogen or a critical minerals tax credit, including compliance with the community benefit principles and the National Interest Framework, which are defined through the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, which the coalition is opposing. The hydrogen production tax credit runs until 2040 and does not commence until 2027. To be eligible for the future hydrogen production tax credit, a minimum requirement is for a business to have a production guarantee of origin certificate, which the coalition is also opposing. The tax credit is valued at $2 a kilo, and only green hydrogen is eligible. The critical minerals production tax credit also runs until 2040 and does not commence until 2027. The bill's interactions with other industry programs give the CER, the Department of Industry, Science and Resource and ARENA new roles in tax administration, including allowing the ATO to share protected tax data with these agencies. Foreign resident companies with an ABN and a permanent establishment who conduct eligible business through their Australian establishment will be eligible for these tax credits. The third schedule implements the Future Made in Australia agenda by allowing Indigenous Business Australia to leverage their capital to invest in First Nations communities' businesses by allowing them to borrow against their existing capital.

There are several issues, and they are wide-ranging. This bill embeds nebulous community benefit principles in the tax act. I've got some specific ideas about that, and I simply do not agree with it. The legislation makes eligibility for tax credits conditional on compliance with the community benefits principles, which sit alongside the National Interest Framework. Embedded in the legislation that establishes the National Interest Framework are the community benefit principles, which will be enforced by Future Made in Australia plans. These plans can be made by the Treasurer through regulation and will be enforceable. The community benefit principles embed First Nations procurement and union participation as requirements to access Future Made in Australia funding. Any participant seeking funding under the programs associated with the National Interest Framework will need to develop a Future Made in Australia plan. The BCA, among others, has highlighted that this risks duplicating the sort of embedded procurement processes in state governments that have empowered the CFMEU to monopolise tender markets.

Further, the policy largely doubles up on Labor's Australian Jobs Act 2013, which requires significant investment proposals of $500 million or more to develop an Australian industry participation plan, which is administered and monitored by the department of industry. The coalition opposed this bill back in 2013 on the basis that it added red tape and compliance costs, and the legislation is frequently cited as one of the biggest red tape impediments to investment proposals, along with EPBC approvals. With tax credits being tied to the community benefit principles, it is highly likely that things like businesses' EBA status will be a factor in their eligibility for a discount, and this is likely to be used as a further wedge by union negotiators in a bid to increase unionisation in the mining industry.

As I said earlier, we know there is a significant proposal in Gladstone. The greater Gladstone area has been nominated by the government as a future hydrogen hub, and we know that Stanwell corporation—which is, as I've said, a Queensland government owned corporation—is proposing to build a green hydrogen production facility at Gladstone, where they will use electrolysers—

Debate interrupted.

Order! I thank the member for Flynn, who will be able to speak in continuation at a later date.

I rise to welcome the very important contribution that's recently been made to the public policy debate by Frontier Economics. Their founder, Danny Price, is a very highly respected and regarded energy economist who released an important analysis into the cost of the current trajectory of Labor's policies when it comes to energy in this country. Regrettably but not surprisingly, it has revealed a very frightening difference between what Mr Price believes will be the cost of Labor implementing their energy plans and what Labor claim that cost will be. It's a pretty significant number: half a trillion dollars. That's $500 billion. The government says it will be $122 billion. Mr Price says it will be more than $600 billion. That is a very dramatic revelation when it comes to the path that we are currently taking under this government's policies in regard to energy.

Mr Price is a valued adviser to Labor governments, particularly in my home state of South Australia. He has advised the Weatherill government and now the Malinauskas government on a number of energy policy issues, and they consider his views to be absolutely expert. Well, his expert view is that, under this government if we continue with its policies, we'll be spending an extra half a trillion dollars on its plan to get to net zero by 2050. Thankfully there is an alternative to the current approach. It is what the coalition has been articulating when it comes to engaging the opportunity of embracing nuclear power for civilian energy generation in this country.

Of course we're already embracing nuclear when it comes to naval shipbuilding with the AUKUS agreement, which is a fantastic opportunity to acquire the best capability that has been technologically pioneered by the United States and now in partnership with the United Kingdom. We are the third nation to have access to this technology. In Adelaide, where my electorate of Sturt is located, we will be building eight submarines with nuclear reactors in their bellies out at Port Adelaide, a mere 15 kilometres from the Adelaide CBD. The government supports nuclear when it comes to submarines. They support eight nuclear reactors in the city limits of Adelaide, but they for some reason don't support embracing the logical next step, which is to also have civilian nuclear generation properly distributed across the country to replace our retiring coal fleet.

Coal has been a very reliable and very affordable source of electricity for this nation for a long, long time. Particularly our two major cities, Sydney and Melbourne, have benefited from having very substantial coal deposits very close to those cities that were abundant and very easy to dig out of the ground to power coal fired plants in the Hunter Valley or in the Latrobe Valley to provide cheap and reliable energy. We know we can't continue to burn coal. We know that we have to get to net zero by 2050. So there is a very sensible technological solution to reliable base-load power replacing the coal fleet that we've got, and that is nuclear. Nuclear is zero emissions. Of course we have a lot of uranium in this country.

We've got a long, proud history in the nuclear sector, but we haven't needed to embrace civilian generation until now. I have some very significant scientists from my electorate that have been pioneers in nuclear, particularly Sir Mark Oliphant, who was very instrumental in nuclear physics through his career. So it is logical for this nation to embrace the next opportunity for nuclear, which is building a civilian nuclear generation fleet of nuclear reactors in this country to replace the retiring coal fleet that we have to ensure that we've got reliability from a source that is abundant within our own country. That is something that we, the coalition, are proudly taking to the next election: a proper and serious plan to get to net zero. We know what Labor are like when it comes to costings, and they've been exposed again with this half-a-trillion-dollar hole in their policy. We will take nuclear to the next election and give that opportunity to the people of this country.

Vanakkam and hello. Thai Pongal marks the end of winter and the sun's six-month journey north. It's a time to celebrate harvest and give thanks for nature's bounty. This tradition, dating back over 2,000 years, unites Tamils worldwide in gratitude to the sun and gods for sustaining agriculture and providing food for us all. As the Tamil community has grown to over 100,000 members in Australia, we have seen this festival grow. I am looking forward to Tamil Festival 2025 and once again enjoying its arts, dance, sports and traditional Pongal rice. I extend my thanks to the Victorian Tamil Association, Victorian Tamil Cultural Association, Casey Tamil Manram, Australian Tamil Chamber of Commerce and Tamil Festival Australia for their work in supporting Thai Pongal. From my home to yours, ellarukum Pongal valthukkal. Happy Pongal to all.

Christmas is my favourite time of the year. It has many different looks for those across Australia, but, for Christians like myself, it is a time to celebrate the birth of my Jesus Christ. It is when we gather with our family, decorate our homes and eat a little too much food! Christmas is also a time of giving. Not everyone approaches this season with the same fortune. It is a moment to reflect on the life of Jesus, who devoted his time on earth to helping those who need it the most. I want to especially acknowledge the work of Backpacks 4 VIC Kids, Vinnies, .Berwick District Woodworkers Club, Cranbourne CISC, Cranbourne-Casey Men's Shed and the Salvation Army, who provide thousands of gifts to kids across our community. Finally, I would like to give a big 'thank you' to the emergency services across Victoria for keeping us safe over the festive season. To those across Hampton Park, Narre Warren South, Lynbrook, Lyndhurst, Cranbourne North, South, East and West, Clyde, Clyde North, Botanic Ridge, Devon Meadows, Pearcedale, Warneet, Blind Bight and Tooradin, from my family to yours, I would like to wish you all a merry and blessed Christmas and a wonderful New Year ahead.

The question every Australian should ask themselves is: am I better off today than I was four years ago? Have my power bills gone down? Has my mortgage repayment dropped? Am I forking out less at the grocery store? Am I paying less at the petrol pump? Have my taxes gone down? Can I now afford insurance? Are interest rates going down? Am I in a better position now than I was before the last election? The answer is clearly, 'No.' Under the Albanese Labor government, we are experiencing the longest household recession on record. Energy prices have soared, mortgages and rent are crippling household budgets, and the cost of groceries and petrol is at record highs. Many people can't even afford the simple rite of passage of taking their kids to a Cowboys game.

If Labor's economic policies are tough in the cities, then they're 10 times worse in the regions. Things like flights and holidays have become a distant dream for many families who are struggling to pay the bills this Labor government has inflicted on them.

Businesses are going bust, economists are sounding alarms, and Australia is still facing one of the highest inflation rates in the developed world. All the economic indicators are flashing red, yet this Labor government seems to be completely oblivious to the mess it's creating for Australians.

Australia needs a new government, one that will get our economy back on track and put Australians first. We don't need more wishful thinking, wasteful spending, divisive referendums or culture wars. We do need a government that will fix the economy, keep our communities safe and champion our regions. We do need local representatives who will genuinely stand up for their communities.

Over the past five years, I've served as Townsville's voice in Canberra, not Canberra's voice in Townsville. I've fought for all who call Townsville home, whether they be local families, defence personnel, veterans, small-business owners, young people or the elderly. They all should have a voice in Canberra. As the defence capital of Australia, with 500 extra troops plus their families expected to move to the city over the next few years, Townsville faces unique challenges and opportunities. The housing market is strained and our bravest shouldn't have to battle for a place to live. That's why I fought to prioritise Townsville for a big build of new DHA housing, which will provide new homes for our defence community.

Rampant youth crime is another top issue in Townsville. When the coalition government's Safer Communities Fund was axed by Labor, leaving 90 young people without a safe haven, I fought to reinstate that funding. We successfully fought for an extension for the Community Gro Youth Hub to keep it running, keeping many of our at-risk youth off the streets.

I've been fighting for Townsville's first responders, who are local heroes in every sense. They should have access to mental health support and services. When a key support provider was left hanging by Labor for funding, I brought the issue to Canberra, moved a motion in parliament and secured the commitment they needed to continue their invaluable services to our first responders.

Likewise, when Labor tried to cut federal funding for the brand new AEIOU autism support centre in Townsville, I stood firm and advocated relentlessly until the funding was restored, ensuring our families raising kids with autism continued to get the support they need. We have now celebrated the opening of this new centre.

Another issue burdening our community is the skyrocketing cost of insurance. I have continually been advocating for the government to get insurers on board to the reinsurance pool. We are now starting to see some evidence of lower increases to premiums, although much more is needed.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in our democratic society, but Labor threatened to shut it down through its misinformation bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. I opposed it fiercely in this chamber. Thankfully, that dangerous un-Australian bill is now off the table—for now. Labor is taking its misinformation bill to the next election as one of its policies.

I've also been holding this Labor government accountable for botching important local projects, with cost blowouts and massive delays on Reef HQ; this project was fully funded before the last election. It's the same for the concert hall. As long as my community keeps sending me here, I'll keep fighting for Townsville.

We're all familiar with the term 'outer suburban'; 'peri-urban' is another matter. Peri-urban areas are where town and country meet and interests intersect. If you're living in an outer suburban or peri-urban community, you may be enjoying green spaces and an absence of traffic jams. But you'll also face challenges. Commuting to work might be a problem.

The Albanese Labor government's commitment to rail and road projects gives the gift of time to individuals and families. In my electorate of Hasluck, the people of outer suburban Ellenbrook now have a railway line giving them fast access to the city. The Ellenbrook station has a five-star Green Star design review rating with 200 solar panels, 10 electric vehicle charging bays and a 12-stand bus interchange. Next to the station, the federal and state Labor governments have combined to commit $42 million to the creation of a pool and leisure centre. That's joy, exercise and companionship for thousands for years ahead.

Good health matters to all of us and it should not depend on the income of your parents or your postcode. Recently, a new urgent care clinic was opened in Midland, the place where the Swan River and Helena River meet and has been the home of the Noongar people for at least 39,000 years and most certainly more. To this day, the City of Swan in which Midland is located has a large proportion of Indigenous Australians in the Perth metropolitan area. This area was known as the Midland junction, the place where the roads of WA's north and what is still called the 'eastern states' meet and where the Midland railway workshops brought in workers from across the state and across the oceans. It most certainly has its own identity and I am delighted that it is now the home of my electorate office.

Now Midland has a fully bulk-billed urgent care clinic, changing 10,000 lives and more since it opened last December. It is open seven days per week and that includes after-hours care, providing the kinds of services that the Liberals did not even bother about. Midland is also the proud home at the North Metropolitan TAFE and, in the last few months, Minister Giles and I have visited it twice just to view this remarkable centre for skills training. We have met with local people given new chances for successful futures via the fee-free TAFE places, of which more than half a million have already been made available across Australia, and the Albanese Labor government wants to add a further 100,000 free places each year. Again the Liberals oppose this; it does not make sense. The new opportunities created by fee-free TAFE include training in the skills we so vitally need in the building and construction sector.

Many in the outer suburban and peri urban areas are paying mortgages. The electorate of Hasluck has the fifth-largest percentage of mortgagees of any electorate in the country. The people opposite, who did not bother to even have portfolios of housing or homelessness, presented the Albanese Labor government with a serious housing problem when we came to office but we set to work. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund is essential to the creation of ongoing secure, coalition-proof funding for social and affordable homes.

I should point out that, while doing this, we have delivered two budget surpluses and paid down the Liberal debt. We have helped bring down inflation from the 6.1 per cent we inherited to the 2.8 per cent in the third quarter of 2024 and lower again today. These are figures which matter everywhere. The fact that we have achieved them while supporting wage rises—also opposed by the Liberals, of course—is a testament to the care and thoughtfulness of our management of Australia's finances.

Other matters are more particular to people who live in peri urban and outer suburban areas. I am talking about the importance of improvements in NBN and mobile phone coverage and improvements in emergency management, and fire and flood preparedness. The new electorate of Bullwinkel in the Perth Hills and foothills is dear to my heart—quite literally. Although I first went to school in what is now part of the new electorate of Hasluck, I later went to live in what is now part of Bullwinkel, and still live there. The funding of $40.9 million to 47 new mobile solutions announced in October is vital for people living in these areas where fires can and do disrupt lives. In fact, I lost my own home. I understand those fears and I am fighting for those concerns.

I want to commend the work done by the Albanese Labor government. It is serious work that has already improved hundreds of peri urban and outer suburban areas across the nation and many thousands of peri urban and outer suburban lives. There is more to do and we are ready to do it for all Australians everywhere.

Summer is ahead of us and I want to acknowledge all of the volunteer emergency services people in my electorate and even around Australia who will be flat out. In my electorate, the volunteers in Forrest will be working overtime with the amount of tourists as well as locals they look after, and they do an amazing job. I look at my surf life saving clubs along the coast. We all have surf life saving clubs that do an amazing job. In WA in the 2022-23 report, it said 90 per cent of the drowning deaths in Western Australia were men, which was up 17 per cent on the year before. While 52 per cent of those occurred at a beach, over 90 per cent were over a kilometre from a surf lifesaving service, which, in itself, tells a story. The surf lifesavers provided first aid and prevented accidents and incidents for nearly 70,000 people. There were over 550,000 people who were caught in a rip that they were able to help.

The other group that I want to mention is our fire and emergency services. In WA, we have 27,000 volunteers. They just have such a big job to do. I look at my area in the south-west of the state, the cape-to-cape region, which has significant fuel loads and is a great challenge for our fire and emergency services. In 2023-24 the comms centre answered approximately 40,000 calls. The volunteers and career firefighters responded to 3,200 crash rescue incidents, 5,800 bushfires and 1,500 search-and-rescue efforts. That includes the likes of our volunteer marine and sea rescue group as well. Look at the number of hours that our volunteers dedicate to our emergency services. To those of us who live in rural and regional parts of Australia, often it's all volunteers or majority volunteers, and they do an extraordinary job.

I also want to recognise St John Ambulance. We had 4,288 St John's volunteers listed in that 2022-23 report. Having a mum who was a St John Ambulance attendant—and our home phone was the ambulance phone all her life—I cannot tell you how important it is in a small community when the people who come to help you when you are hurt, injured, desperately ill or have had an emergency are your local people. The amount of comfort and support it gives you when it is someone you know is great. Often these same ambulance volunteers have to deal with the worst situations locally with people they know, and that comes at a cost for them.

I just want to acknowledge the great importance for rural, regional and remote communities of our volunteer and professional emergency services operatives. When we look at what happens with each one of these, the number of hours that go into training that nobody sees is extraordinary. They do this week in and week out. They don't even look to be thanked. They do it because they are committed to what they do and they are very, very good at it. Sometimes the numbers ebb and flow, and there can be an extraordinary amount expected of a small number of people. But they keep doing it because they believe in it and they know not only that what they are doing helps each one of us when we are most at risk but also that they are part of that really genuine local community that makes such a difference to us.

We cannot do without our emergency services volunteers. Nothing means more in a small community. If it's a bushfire, a flood, an accident on the road or an incident of any sort, when we see our local volunteers turn up we are very, very grateful. You can often form a bond with those volunteers that lasts for the rest of your life. I just wanted to say thank you to every one of our professional and volunteer workers, who just do such an extraordinary job in emergency services. We desperately need them all, and we are very grateful to have them all.

GARLAND () (): The end of the year is always a good time for reflection and to show gratitude, so I want to take this opportunity here tonight to look back at some of the commitments I have delivered in my community and to thank the wonderful people of Chisholm for the chance to represent them and recognise the important work so many do in our local area.

I know that health and cost-of-living pressures are important issues in my community. I recognise the hardworking health workforce and care workforce who serve our community and thank them for their work. But, of course, they all deserve more than our heartfelt thanks. They deserve better pay and adequate support. So I am really pleased that our government is delivering historic pay increases for aged-care workers in my community.

It is also significant that the bulk-billing rebate has tripled for eligible patients, which has meant that more GPs are able to bulk-bill patients. These changes that we've made have meant that over 3,000 extra Medicare bulk-billing appointments have been made available to people in Chisholm over a few months.

I'm really pleased, too, that we are supporting GPs and primary care workers through our Strengthening Medicare grants program. In Chisholm, I have advocated for and secured $1.72 million in support for 62 local GP clinics. This funding is supporting the very important work that general practitioners do every day, tirelessly, providing care to our wonderful community.

I know how important general practice is. I grew up in a household where my parents ran a medical practice. The support for public health and primary care that our government is proud to provide and is necessary to our community is something that is absolutely near and dear to my heart. I will always be a fierce advocate for our community and for health care and making sure that all care is affordable and accessible for everyone.

I am pleased, too, that we have an urgent care clinic in our electorate, at 408 Huntingdale Road in Mount Waverley. This means that our community can access the health care they need when they need it—often, outside of normal practice hours for local GPs—and this, too, relieves pressure on our nearby emergency departments. This is bulk-billing care, so it means that everyone is able to access the service the clinic provides. I've heard so many positive stories in my community about the Mount Waverley Urgent Care Clinic. I've received lovely phone calls and emails and have had truly wonderful conversations with locals while I've been out doorknocking, at train stations and at shopping centres where I hold regular mobile offices.

People in Chisholm have also saved over $7 million due to our 60-day prescriptions measures. That's a really big deal. Our electorate has been one of the largest beneficiaries in the nation of the savings from the 60-day prescriptions program. This means more money saved and also time that people don't need to spend going to doctors' appointments, which saves patients time and also frees up appointments for other people in our community.

I've also been really pleased to secure a headspace in Box Hill, and I am really delighted that, in our term of government, not only have we won a new headspace but this has joined a headspace in Syndal, just a few doors down from my electorate office. Youth mental health is really important and I will always be a vocal advocate and champion for increased services for young people to access the support that they need. These are beautiful centres, and I have been really privileged to be able to take both Minister Butler and Assistant Minister McBride through these centres and to hear from people about the wonderful experiences they've had accessing these centres.

I really want to emphasise my gratitude for the health and care workers across Chisholm. I know how hard everybody works and how important the work everyone does is. It's really critical to me that I work as hard as I can, every single day, to ensure that these workers and the people in my community get the support that they need. Please know, I will always fight for everyone in my community to access the care they need to live a good life.

Merry Christmas, Speaker, and merry Christmas to everyone in Chisholm. Thank you so much.

I thank the member for Chisholm so much.

I've also been holding this Labor government accountable for botching important local projects like the cost blowouts and massive delays at Reef HQ, which we had fully funded before the last election, or for Labor's abandonment of the Townsville concert hall project, which was also fully funded and ready to go under the previous coalition government.

As long as my community keeps sending me here, I'll always keep fighting for Townsville. But we could do so much more with a new government behind us. We deserve a government that truly puts Australians first, brings down the cost of living, keeps us safe and stands up for our community. Townsville deserves better, and the coalition is ready to deliver.

In the last one minute, I want to pay tribute to my longest-serving staff member, Philip Calder, who is departing my office to take up a higher calling and pursuing his dream to become a minister. I thank him on behalf of my office and the people of Townsville.

House adjourned at 20:00

This week marks International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and 16 days of activism to help prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls. Family violence occurs across all social groups. It does not respect class, education or social status. Women and children are most commonly its victims. It often goes unreported. Physical violence is its most visible form, but other forms of violence and abuse can be equally harmful. These issues are intergenerational, and they hurt us all.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 09:44 to 10:44

In the year ended March 2024 over a thousand family violence incidents were reported in the City of Boroondara, the largest local government area in Kooyong. Half of those involved violence between partners, and a third were witnessed by children. I thank the staff of the organisations who support women and children affected by family violence in Kooyong. They include 1800RESPECT, White Ribbon, the South East Centre Against Sexual Assault, Eastern Community Legal Centre, Djirra, The Orange Door, the Women's Legal Service Victoria, and Rainbow Door.

I also thank the first responders called out to deal with family violence—the police and ambulances who see people at their worst and deal with them with compassion and respect. Your work can be heartbreaking, and I hope you know how much it is appreciated by our community.

In recent months the federal government has invested $4 billion into preventing violence against women and another $4 billion into legal services. It's a good start, but it's just a start. We still need a significant uplift in frontline services to support girls and women fleeing domestic violence. The first step in that process has to be housing support.

Last night in Australia 7½ thousand women and children were couch surfing, and 2½ thousand slept in their cars or slept rough. We know that almost half the women and girls who are seeking homelessness assistance do so because of family and domestic violence. We know that a lack of access to safe housing prevents many women from escaping violence and pushes them back into violent homes.

At what could well be the end of this parliamentary term, we are still awaiting the government's overdue national housing and homelessness agreement. We need it urgently, and it needs to include increased support for the homeless; more investment in safe-at-home programs; an increase in youth allowance payments and Commonwealth rental assistance; and more social housing.

All of us here need to do what we can to keep women and children safer in this community.

We are blessed in my electorate of Barton to have a cohort of fantastic teachers. I have been taking the time to congratulate our longest serving teachers for their devotion to their work and for creating a bright future for students in their care. I was pleased to be able to present awards for long service in person at Danebank Hurstville. Some teachers have been there for over 37 years, and the smart, strong young women I met are a testament to their commitment.

As we come to the close of another year, I know that the joy of the festive season is tempered by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and Lebanon. I continue to receive many emails and calls from constituents and have spoken to them in meetings. They express their collective grief; their horror at the sheer number of humanity lost; and the desperate need for a ceasefire. They are aware of the realities of international politics and diplomacy, but they are calling on their leaders to centre humanity and for Israel and Palestine to be equal partners on the global stage.

In this season of peace, joy and hope, may we all be the instruments for creating a more just and secure future for the world. I wish Barton residents and everyone here a very happy festive season and success and health in 2025.

It was my honour to join the Caboolture Seventh-day Adventist Church last Saturday when they honoured two local organisations for their service to the Longman community—for the third year running. The first recipient this year was the Caboolture Neighbourhood Centre, who work with a range of people in our community. One of their key programs is assisting people, particularly women, assimilate into Australian culture, including with practical courses on basic mechanics, such as how to change a tyre, as many of these women have come from countries where women aren't even allowed to drive. Now, thankfully, they have this freedom that we take for granted. The centre also provides food hampers; runs family fun days that are free for the community; runs counselling services, such as financial resilience, basic computing skills, nutritional budget cooking, and anger control and behavioural change courses for adults. They also provide services such as filling out forms, and migration and visa advice. Well done to Malcolm, Marilyn and the entire team.

The second recipient was Eat 4 The Streets, which was founded by Michael Cox—or Mick, as we know him. They simply set up every Saturday at Centenary Lakes in Caboolture and make burgers, not only for the homeless but for families who are struggling and for whom not having to pay for one meal could be the difference between paying this week's rent or mortgage repayment. They have a no-judgement policy, so they don't ask people's financial situation; they just provide food and a place to connect.

Mick has also developed an app and website which people can use to see where other groups in the Longman community provide food during the week. Mick proudly stated that by using this resource there is now at least one organisation providing a meal seven days a week somewhere in our community, with the days, times and locations all provided on the Eats 4 The Streets website.

The other outstanding attribute of Eats 4 The Streets is that, to date, they have been completely funded by the generosity of the local community, particularly the congregation at Emerge Church in Morayfield. Thank you to Pastor Casey Wolverton for inviting me to celebrate these two wonderful organisations.

I'd also like to farewell the principal of Woodford P-10 State School, Ronnie Hill, and thank her for the two decades of service to the school and the Woodford community. Ever since I met Ronnie, she has been advocating for Woodford State School to have grades 11 and 12 brought to the school so that parents and students don't have the disruption of making the move to another school such as Kilcoy or Tullawong at a very important time in their education. Ironically, the LNP promised they would deliver this if elected. So Ronnie won't actually enjoy the fruits of her advocacy personally, but I know for Ronnie it was always about the students, not personal accolades. Well done, Ronnie, and we thank you.

It is with great pleasure that I inform the House that we are holding the Second Central Coast Big Aussie Luncheon and Men's Health Forum in the electorate of Robertson in early December. The idea is to create a greater awareness of prostate cancer and men's health, particularly in men over the age of 40. We're working in conjunction with multiple stakeholders and multiple partners to make sure that this event gets up off the ground. What it will include is a luncheon and presentations by representatives from the Prostate Cancer Foundation and myself. All men over the age of 40 are welcome. And the list is growing as we speak.

We held the inaugural big Aussie luncheon at the Davistown RSL last year, and that had close to 150 attendees. A story that a constituent told me just recently was that the wife of one of the gentlemen that went to the last luncheon dragged her husband there—as we all know, men don't like going to the doctor—and he thought, 'You know what, I'm going to get my prostate levels checked, my PSA checked.' The prostate turned out to be okay, but he in fact had quite a significant tumour in his bladder, which wouldn't have been picked up if he hadn't gone to the doctor for that. He had surgery to resect that tumour, and ultimately that ended up saving his life. We hold a lot of events as MPs. We hold a lot of forums and the like. But in this case this luncheon was able to let this gentleman have access to the information that he needed. He went and saw a medical professional, and then, ultimately, that led to positive health outcomes for this gentleman.

I really encourage people to get in touch with my office if they'd like to attend this Second Central Coast Big Aussie Luncheon, because we are raising awareness for all men's health, but in particular prostate cancer. It's a condition that we need to make sure that we get on top of both on the medical side of things, but also as a parliament. We know that if we nip these things in the bud now, they don't exacerbate and they don't become metastatic disease and then require quite intensive chemoradiotherapy and surgery later on.

I would encourage people to get in contact with my office, and if you can't attend the big Aussie luncheon then please get in touch with my office, and we can send you some materials from the Prostate Cancer Foundation. We can send you some materials from the federal department of health to make sure that you're informed and to make sure that you know all of the information that you need to know with regard to prostate cancer and other issues affecting men's health.

This week we mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, initiating the 16 days of activism against gender based violence. This global campaign compels us to confront the unacceptable reality: violence against women and girls remains a pervasive issue in Australia, with over 60 women tragically losing their lives to domestic violence this year.

In Durack, our regional and remote communities face particular challenges. The Kimberley region alone recorded 1,096 family assaults between July and September this year. These figures quite simply are devastating, reflecting a crisis that is undermining the safety and cohesion of communities. Anecdotally, this is due to alcohol and drug abuse. Violence against women and girls is inexcusable. While it is a complex, multifaceted problem, it is not insurmountable.

Today we recommit to the goal of eliminating gender based violence. This involves addressing its root causes, breaking cycles of violence and fostering a culture of respect and equality. However, women in regional, rural and remote areas like Durack face unique challenges. Women living on farms or in small towns often hesitate to seek help due to the lack of anonymity and also that fear of gossip in tight-knit communities. Our sisters in cities hopefully have more privacy and are able to access a broader range of services. Regional women's needs differ significantly from those in metropolitan areas, and this requires tailored programs that address these specific barriers.

One such program is the remarkable DVassist, which provides women in regional and remote Western Australia with free, anonymous and confidential counselling through phone and online services. This service is simply a lifeline that ensures those who seek help can access the discreet support they need without fear of exposure or judgement.

But, of course, men and boys are vital partners in preventing violence. Engaging them in this mission is key—of course it's key—to breaking cycles of violence and transforming societal norms. Men are essential to the solution, and I strongly believe that there should be more focus on supporting programs that help our men to simply be better men.

The coalition demonstrated our commitment to women's safety with around $1 billion. This funding helped support women escaping violent relationships and strengthened frontline domestic and family violence services, but we need to do more. There are a lot of words spoken about keeping our women and our girls safe, but I think we all know in this place that words simply aren't enough. We need more action, and we need it now. Let's commit to eliminating gender based violence no matter where our women are and no matter where they live.

Today I rise to acknowledge Elizabeth Anne Gillespie, or Lizzie to her family and friends—a great South Australian who passed away last month. Born in 1942, the 13th child of 14, Elizabeth led a storied life. She had a rare genetic disorder called spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia congenita, or SEDC, which affects the bones of the spine, arms and legs. She wasn't expected to live a long life, but she surpassed every expectation, living until 82. SEDC often results in dwarfism and can cause really serious issues with vision and hearing loss. Lizzie chose not to have surgical interventions for scoliosis, and, when she was asked if she ever regretted that choice, she shrugged her shoulders and said: 'Well, they didn't have any guarantees I wouldn't be as I am today.'

She was remembered as a really good student at St Dominic's Priory, in North Adelaide. A classmate once noted that she faced every day with composure and courage despite the difficulty and the discrimination that she would no doubt have faced as a student with disability back in the 1940s and 1950s.

In the 1960s, Elizabeth was an early leader and advocate for people with disability—a pioneering campaigner for disability rights, for acceptance and for opportunity in South Australia. She and her sister would often write letters to people in positions of power to ask for better supports, for better services and for equal access.

Lizzie was a lover of music. She was often said to be the last one standing on the dance floor, demanding that the band play one more song. In 1975, Elizabeth, I'm pleased to say, continued her lifelong political activism when she joined the crowd of South Australians who protested the sacking of the Whitlam government in Victoria Square, in the centre of Adelaide.

In her later years, she lived a simple life. It was full of love, of kindness, of close friendship and of cats. She always had a great love of animals. Sadly, Elizabeth passed away on 6 October 2024, and I want to provide my sincerest condolences to her family and to her friends. I thank Lizzie for her advocacy, for her activism and for her courage in supporting Australians with a disability, which has had an ongoing impact right until today.

It's no secret that, under an Albanese Labor government, Australians are worse off today than they were three years ago. We face an economy weighed down by Labor's severe mismanagement and there doesn't seem to be a quick solution in sight. Australians are enduring the longest household recession on living record. Australia's costs are up, incomes are down and families are struggling to make ends meet. Mortgage payments have tripled for many households, due to 12 unnecessary rate rises under Labor's watch. Disposable incomes have collapsed by 8.7 per cent, the largest fall since records began, and living standards have fallen off a cliff.

What is causing this pain? It is Labor's undisciplined spending. By pumping $350 billion into wasteful programs, Labor is fuelling inflation and driving grocery and energy prices up higher for longer. Australians are now grappling with skyrocketing costs: electricity prices are up over 30 per cent, rents are up 16 per cent and gas is up a staggering 33 per cent. Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank confirms that there is no interest rate relief in sight. Even worse, Labor is undermining key national institutions to try and cover up its failures. Their plan is to use the Future Fund as an independent sovereign wealth fund to secure Australia's financial future. It's reckless and it's unjustifiable. Redirecting the Future Fund's investments to pet projects not only threatens its independence but also risks the prosperity of current and future generations, adding further to the evidence that when Labor run out of their own money, they'll come looking for yours.

Labor never sought a mandate from the Australian people to make those changes and, when questioned in the parliament, they had no answers. Labor's priorities are just all wrong. Remember, instead of addressing the cost-of-living crisis, Labor spent the $500 million on a failed referendum, showing their misdirected priorities. On nearly every metric, Australians are worse off. Labour productivity has fallen 6.3 per cent in just two years. Household savings have collapsed, business insolvencies are at record highs, GDP per capita—a measure that reflects what Australians truly feel—has gone backwards for six straight consecutive quarters, and it's a darn shame.

It doesn't have to be this way. A Dutton-led coalition government will deliver a back-to-basics economic agenda, fight inflation, cut red tape and secure our energy future. We'll reform taxes, support small businesses and restore Australia's living standards. The coalition's focus is clear: restore economic discipline, rebuild productivity and get Australia back on track. Under our leadership, Australia can look forward to a bright and more prosperous future.

My communities, my businesses, my farmers, my families and my pensioners are all struggling, and all Labor can offer them is a free TAFE course.

This year marks a truly remarkable milestone for the i98FM Illawarra Convoy as it celebrates 20 years of supporting local charities and families in need. Hosted by Marty, Christian and Bella from i98FM, the Illawarra convoy is the largest truck and motorbike convoy in the southern hemisphere and one of the biggest single-day regional fundraisers in Australia.

This year, convoy raised an incredible $2.5 million, taking the overall total to just over $27.5 million dollars over the past two decades. The money raised directly supports the Illawarra Community Foundation, which assists families across the Illawarra, Shoalhaven and Southern Highlands facing life-threatening or life-limiting illnesses. This year's convoy was truly historic, with a record-breaking 672 motorbikes and 715 trucks, travelling the route from Appin Colliery to Shellharbour Airport.

For the fourth consecutive year, Coles Illawarra had the winning bid of $220,220 for the lead bike. However, Peter Anderson, regional manager for Coles, offered the lead bike position to Kris from second-placed Throttle Jockies, who has been facing his own cancer battle. The lead truck position for the Illawarra convoy is one of the event's most prestigious and fiercely sought-after positions. This year, Karlie and Adrian from Tiny Tins, together with Orlane from Wollongong Crane Trucks, demonstrated incredible dedication and teamwork to claim the coveted title. Their extraordinary bid of $300,020 secured the lead truck position, which they had narrowly missed out on last year. Karlie, Adrian and Orlane didn't achieve this alone. With the support of James and Aimee from Grechys Boxing and Fitness, they worked tirelessly throughout the year, hosting events such as the Battle of the Businesses boxing night. Their collaborative effort shows the incredible power of community and how local businesses and individuals can come together to achieve something truly remarkable.

Tiny Tins also made the record books as they were the smallest truck to ever lead the convoy. This tiny truck was driven by six-year-old Ase who lives with Hirschsprung's disease, which affects the colon and causes bowel issues. Ase and his family have been the recipients of the incredible support that the Illawarra Convoy provides. It has been a dream of his to be the lead truck of the convoy, and, thanks to the incredible efforts of Tiny Tins and Wollongong Crane Trucks, they were able to make this a reality. Ase drove the tiny truck out of the colliery to initially lead the convoy, but then jumped into the passenger seat as the tiny truck was put on the back of another truck to head down the mountain.

Congratulations to Marty, Christian and Bella from i98FM for another successful convoy, and congratulations to Ase for being the youngest to lead the convoy in the smallest truck.

Yesterday at the National Press Club, I made it very clear to Australians that the coalition, unlike the Labor government, won't accept a generation of Australians not having the same opportunities for home ownership that previous generations of Australians have enjoyed. Based on the track record of this government, we know that first home buyers are not a priority of this government. We know that not enough houses have been built, and there are falling rates of completions, approvals and, of course, first home buyers. On every single metric, housing has gone backwards under the Albanese government, compared to under the coalition government. Meanwhile, while we are building, completing and approving fewer homes and there are fewer first home buyers, Labor has run the biggest migration program in a generation, with more than 1.4 million overseas arrivals and the government having absolutely no idea where those people will live.

We've also made it very clear that we understand that the deposit hurdle is just too high for many people trying to break into the housing market. So it begs the question as to why on earth the Labor Party would be trenchantly standing in the way of first home buyers getting access to a portion of their own money in superannuation, which they could put towards a deposit to get into a new home and then put it back into their super at the end, ensuring that their money is working for them to help them get into a new home.

Under this government, access to finance has also become even harder. A big four bank CEO has stated publicly that if you're not wealthy, it's very difficult to get finance in this country. Yet we've seen nothing from this government. But what did we see this week? We finally saw the Labor Party prioritising foreign corporate landlords over Australian mums and dads owning Australian housing stock. We have the government now, in their alliance with the Greens, inviting foreign corporate funds, vulture funds and private equity to come to Australia with the most advantageous tax rates possible—better than any Australian could get—in order to own tens of thousands of homes in this country.

The coalition does not want the failed US corporate model here. We want Australians to own Australian homes. That's why this unholy alliance between the Greens and the Labor Party is leaving Australians behind. Let's not mention the fact that construction costs that are borne by first home buyers at the end have been exacerbated by the Labor Party buckling to the CFMEU. The criminal CFMEU has pushed up the costs of first home buyers, who are ultimately the ones who wear those extra costs.

It's a privilege to stand here today and reflect on the remarkable contributions of Chinese Australians to our country that have shaped not only our economy but also the cultural richness and diversity that define modern Australia. From the earliest arrivals during the gold rush era to today's thriving Chinese communities, the impact of Chinese Australians can be seen in every corner of our society. They have also contributed to our nation's success in business, science, the arts and academia as well as through their commitment to family, hard work and community. Their entrepreneurial spirit and resilience have made a lasting mark on our history. I was reminded of this just recently when I had the honour of hosting an event in Parramatta with the Chinese community and Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Penny Wong. It was an inspiring gathering that celebrated the enduring relationship between Australia and China as well as the immense contributions Chinese Australians make to our local community.

Parramatta is the beating heart of multiculturalism in Western Sydney, and it's here that we see the strength of our diverse communities most clearly. The event was a powerful reminder that diversity is one of Australia's greatest strengths. The stories shared by community leaders and everyday Australians reflected the values that unite us all: respect, opportunity and hope for a better future. As we heard from Senator Penny Wong herself, symbol of Australia's diversity, the Chinese Australian committee plays a crucial role in strengthening the ties between Australia and the broader Asia-Pacific region. Whether it's through fostering business relationships, excelling in education or celebrating traditions, like lunar new year, that bring communities together, Chinese Australians are an integral part of our shared story. This contribution goes beyond economics or trade. It's cultural, personal and deeply rooted in the belief that Australia is stronger when we embrace the richness of our multicultural heritage. It reminds us to celebrate our differences, honour our shared values and commit to building a nation where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Chinese Australian community in Parramatta for their incredible contributions to our nation. Together let us continue to champion a future that is inclusive, united and full of promise for all Australians.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

I rise in support of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024. I'd like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the former minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, who moved this matter forward, and the new minister, the marvellous Minister McCarthy, who is progressing the legislative amendments. At the heart of this bill is Labor's recognition and ongoing support of the rights of First Nations people to own and control their traditional lands. At the heart of this whole piece of legislation is recognising history, recognising truth, recognising facts.

This bill amends schedule 1 of the act and supports the finalisation of the land claim for approximately 484,000 hectares of unalienated Crown land near the Canteen Creek community. Canteen Creek is known locally as Owairtilla and lies about 270 kilometres south-east of Tennant Creek in the Barkly region of the Northern Territory. The Albanese Labor government has introduced this bill to support the implementation of the Canteen Creek Area Indigenous Land Use Agreement, which was entered into by the Northern Territory and the Central Land Council in 2020. An Indigenous land use agreement, or ILUA for those that don't work in this area of law, is a voluntary agreement between native title parties and other peoples or bodies about the use and management of areas of land or waters. It's actually very common, particularly in the mining industry. In fact, when I worked in that area, there were even ILUAs that covered all of Queensland for certain agreements.

This ILUA resolves the native title rights and interests over all the land within the Canteen Creek township boundary. In the case of the Canteen Creek area, this bill finalises the Wakaya Alyawarre land claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, also known as the land rights act. The people of the Wakaya and Alyawarre language groups have a strong connection with this land which is linked with emu and many other dreamings. They have been waiting for decades for their land claim to be finalised, with land claims beginning in 1980 and 1990. The land rights act is a federal law that is unique to the Northern Territory. It is a piece of legislation that was drafted by the Whitlam government and introduced to parliament in October 1975, and this largely unchanged legislation was subsequently passed by the Fraser government in 1976. I particularly praise Malcolm Fraser for his work with First Nations people.

This was the first legislation in the country to enable First Nations people to claim land rights for country—as in the part of Australia they belong to—where traditional ownership could be proven. At its centre is a recognition of First Nations spiritual and cultural affiliation with the land. It's a concept touched on in song. As a property lawyer, as a conveyancing lawyer, my idea was to get people to own land, whereas for some First Nations people it's about the concept of belonging to the land.

In Queensland we have something that is not a little bit dissimilar: the deed of grant in trust lands, or DOGIT lands. But the background there is a little bit more problematic, because DOGIT lands were often a dumping ground for various First Nations people, where they were removed from country and then dumped in one area, often a mission. So, DOGIT land is slightly different. But the Land Rights Act has enshrined Aboriginal land as private property, which its traditional owners hold collectively through a unique form of freehold title. The land cannot be sold or mortgaged. The former conveyancing lawyer in me loves this stuff, but obviously it's not everyone's cup of tea.

The Land Rights Act also established four land councils, including the Central Land Council. The Central Land Council is responsible for the southern half of the Northern Territory. Under the act, the Central Land Council consults traditional Aboriginal landowners and other Aboriginal people who have an interest in Aboriginal land about proposals for the use of that land and assists with land claims and management. It also: supervises and assists Aboriginal land trusts; assists with the economic development of land and promotes community development; administers permits to visit Aboriginal land; and protects Aboriginal culture and sacred sites. I know there is much work taking place in terms of the green energy transition regarding returns to traditional owners that can come through having wind farms and solar panels on land that export electricity.

With the passing of this bill, the Wakaya Alyawarre land will be granted as Aboriginal land to an Aboriginal land trust. The land trust will hold inalienable freehold title for the benefit of the traditional First Nations owners and other First Nations people who have an interest in the land. This bill is supported by stakeholders, having been through the ILUA execution process with the Central Land Council. This includes all reasonable efforts to identify impacted people and a timeframe for objections to be raised. The only impacts will be minor, as the Aboriginal Land Trust will be required to comply with the provisions of the Land Rights Act.

It's also important to consider this bill in regard to the Closing the Gap framework. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap includes 19 names that have an impact on life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Outcome No. 15 is that people maintain a distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic relationship with their land and waters. So, even if you're not living in that area you still are able to maintain some of those other aspects as outlined in No. 15 of the Closing the Gap targets. The corresponding target is set for 2030 and is twofold. Firstly, it aims for a 15 per cent increase in Australian landmass that is subject to Aboriginal and Torres Islander people's legal rights or interests. Secondly, it aims for a 15 per cent increase in areas covered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's legal rights or interests in the sea.

According to the Productivity Commission, as at 30 June 2023 more than 4.2 million square kilometres of the landmass of Australia and more than 113,000 square kilometres of the sea country of Australia were subject to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's rights or interests. The Productivity Commission notes that the targets are on track to being met, and this bill is another important step in that journey. With land-tenure certainty comes economic opportunity.

This bill affirms that the Albanese Labor government is committed to finalising land claims in the Northern Territory under the Land Rights Act. The settling of land rights matters enables traditional owners to maintain their distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic relationship to the land. I commend the bill to the House.

I wish to speak in relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024. The effect of the bill would be to add an area of vacant crown land near the Aboriginal community of Canteen Creek to part IV of schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. As we've just heard, this bill resolves the Wakaya Alyawarre land rights claim and would allow the land to be granted to an Aboriginal land trust as inalienable Aboriginal freehold land. In order for this agreement to be completed, the Commonwealth parliament must directly amend the land rights act.

The initial agreement was between the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory Labor government. Following the recent election in the Northern Territory, we have consulted with the new CLP government in relation to the proposal and the government is supportive of this bill being passed. The Northern Territory government has advised that, if passed, the bill would not have any impact on pastoral interests. Further, it poses no issue to mining or energy interests. We recognise this bill will provide certainty to both the Northern Territory government and the township. In this regard, we note that housing and commercial development projects often require land lease terms which are significant in length in order for the project to proceed. If this bill is successful—which we believe it will be—it will allow for this kind of development and investment in the region.

Despite the fact that there are benefits to this bill, we are concerned that the Albanese government refused to refer this bill to a committee for further examination. When the bill was introduced in the Senate, the coalition requested that it be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. The Albanese government's refusal to refer this bill to the committee was, in our opinion, a wasted opportunity. The reality is that the land rights act, which is amended by this bill, has been in operation now for nearly 50 years and is in need of review and revision. This bill provides a timely opportunity to examine whether the land rights act remains fit for purpose. It provides an opportunity to consider whether it still serves in the interests of Indigenous Australians to the furthest extent possible or whether it could be more effective.

The land rights act provides a unique opportunity for Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory. It should be a springboard for wealth, health and improved quality of life. However, the reality is that Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are not the most advantaged in the country, far from it. In fact, some Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are our most disadvantaged, most marginalised and most vulnerable.

This is a point the coalition often raises when addressing Indigenous disadvantage in this place—that our focus needs to be where the gap is, in fact, the greatest. We know that three per cent of the Australian population is Indigenous, but it is only around 20 per cent of that total which is actually marginalised. But the situation in the Northern Territory is particularly bad. The 2024 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework reveals that Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory experience the greatest area-level disadvantage compared with other jurisdictions around Australia. The disparity is concerning, given the opportunity that the land rights act provides for this to not be the case. It demonstrates that things are not working the way they should be for our most vulnerable and marginalised Indigenous Australians.

This is just one reason why revisiting the operation of the land rights act would have been beneficial in this case. An examination of the land rights act would also have been important because of its role in governing Northern Territory land councils. We believe the operation of land councils is, in large part, causing traditional owners in the Northern Territory to be land rich but dirt poor. The councils often make it functionally impossible for land to be utilised for economic development. We are seeing lease processing times of up to 666 days in some land councils, which is simply unacceptable. However, not all land councils have these problems. Therefore, we know it would be possible for things to be better if the legislation were actually reviewed. Further, we believe that some of the larger Northern Territory land councils are hindering opportunity in the community.

Despite the Territory having comparable wealth due to its resources, the Northern Territory only sees a fraction of the mining and energy projects that a place like Western Australia has. The Northern Territory should be more like Western Australia than the ACT, due to our environments and resources, yet this simply isn't the case in the Territory at the moment. Again, this is why the reference of this bill to a committee would have been a beneficial step.

If we want to empower Indigenous Australians to achieve economic independence and to stand on their own two feet, we need to be willing to examine the existing structures like the land councils. If those structures aren't able to be effective and efficient, they shouldn't exist. But the kneejerk type responses which we see time and again from the Albanese Labor government, which simply create more layers of government, just aren't going to cut it. These are some of the most powerful and important decision-making bodies in the Northern Territory, and this bill could have ensured the land councils were examined if it, in fact, had gone to a committee for review.

The truth is that opportunity abounds in the Northern Territory, and that opportunity should be used, and could be used, to improve the situation of the most marginalised Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory, who live in highly disadvantaged areas at a greater rate than those in other parts of the country. But the Albanese government shut the chance of that down when it refused to refer this bill to a committee. Therefore, while the coalition does support this motion, we feel it is necessary to have highlighted these points about the need for the land rights act to be revisited as a matter of urgency for the sake of our most marginalised Indigenous Australians.

In summing up this debate, I want to thank members for their contributions on the proposed Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024. As has been highlighted, this bill adds an area of land to schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the land rights act. This enables the grant of land to an Aboriginal land trust and finalisation of the Wakaya Alyawarre (Repeat) Land Claim. The land in question comprises approximately 484,000 hectares near Canteen Creek community in the Barkly region of the Northern Territory. It is approximately 275 kilometres south-east of Tennant Creek.

I want to acknowledge the contributions of the member for Gippsland, who noted that this provides certainty to the Northern Territory government and that they have provided their support. I also want to thank members of the coalition for their support on this bill and to note, as the member for Gippsland just did—in his words—that this brings both economic and social benefits to the communities affected. It is also consistent with our commitments, which have been endorsed in this place, to Closing the Gap and with our commitments and obligations under that partnership.

I want to thank my friend the member for Moreton for his contribution noting that this is about ownership and control.

An honourable member interjecting—

I agree; it was a brilliant contribution from the member for Moreton. He also talked about recognising history. This bill is about recognising history and what was here long before any of us came into this place—long, long before. He talked about the importance of the traditional owners, recognising that, while this is about them having custody of that land, they see themselves as belonging to the land. Again, I thank him for talking about the extensive consultations and also the benefits for community development that this bill will enable.

The government remains committed to progressing unresolved land claims in the Northern Territory. It's all part of our determination to increase First Nations land rights and their interests in land, sea and country when it comes to meeting the National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap. This recognises the many social, economic and cultural benefits that can only be achieved from land ownership and continuing connection to country.

I acknowledge that for the traditional owners this land has significant emu dreaming associations and many other dreamings. I'd like to thank the traditional owners, the Central Land Council, and the Northern Territory government for their work in finalising the Indigenous land use agreement that supports this bill. This bill paves the way for finalisation of the longstanding Aboriginal land claim. I commend the bill to the Chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

I am pleased to speak on the report by the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, Drowning in waste: plastic pollution in Australia's oceans and waterways. This is an important report, and I thank each member of the standing committee for the work on an issue that is having a devastating impact in Australia's oceans and waterways. I particularly want to thank the chair of the standing committee, the member for Makin, for his work. This issue is particularly acute in my community of Dunkley, which sits along Port Phillip Bay and bears the full brunt of plastic pollution after storms or heavy rainfall. Walk down the beach after a storm and you are greeted by rubbish—plastic bits and pieces, bottle tops, single-use plastic, cups, bottles, thongs, toys and debris, in all shapes and sizes. I take a rubbish bag with me to help clean up the mess. We also have creeks and other waterways, like Sweetwater Creek in Frankston South and Patterson River, feeding into Patterson Lakes. These precious waterways also get clogged with plastic after heavy rainfall.

The committee, in its report Drowning in waste: plastic pollution in Australia's oceans and waterways, made 22 recommendations aimed at trying to create incentives for newly produced plastic to contain recycled materials, strengthening Australia's plastic management framework and also strengthening the management of plastic that already exists in the environment. To me, these are important, critical measures that must be implemented to reduce the harm caused by plastics—because the harm associated with plastics is undeniable, whether it be to humans, animals, marine life or our beautiful natural environment. As the report points out, microfibres and microplastics are already found in our food and water and contain harmful chemicals and toxins that are detrimental to human health. Just recently, I watched a report on the ABC which made the connection between leaching from plastic packaging and increasing levels of infertility in men and women.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Mindaroo Foundation, in collaboration with JBI at the University of Adelaide, on the report Umbrella review: impact of plastic-associated chemical exposure on human health,a world-leading study. The report said:

… our umbrella review focused on research into some of the commonly used groups of plastic chemicals that we know humans are exposed to.

And:

Our umbrella review found that there is consistent and irrefutable evidence that plastic chemicals in every class examined harm human health across the entire human life cycle.

There is much more research to be done in this space, as we as a society have significant gaps in knowledge on this issue.

Some really good, simple recommendations are included in the Drowning in waste report, which can be implemented relatively easily—simple things, like recommendation 9, 'to standardise and simplify plastic packaging and recyclability labelling to make it easier for consumers to recycle effectively'. Greenwashing is legitimate and requires more oversight. Creating a uniform system of recyclability labelling would help solve this. Recommendation 8 recommends harmonising and expanding state and territory container deposit schemes. In Victoria we received a container deposit scheme only a little over a year ago, but I know that many states and territories have been running their own container deposit schemes for many years. Creating uniformity in these schemes and expanding them to include milk, juice, wine and spirit bottles would go a long way towards the reduction of plastics entering landfill or our natural environment.

Governments must take leadership on schemes like this, where the private sector fails—situations like that of soft-plastics recycler REDcycle, who suspended their soft-plastics collection program in November 2022 due to their recycling partners temporarily stopping the acceptance and processing of soft plastics. The suspension of the REDcycle program removed the only established and widespread recycling pathway for consumers and created significant concerns about existing stockpiles and how consumers can recycle soft plastics. The Soft Plastics Taskforce was established in response, and I look forward to its recommendations and outcomes. There is a clear need for an effective program which is uniform across the country and led by the Australian government.

As the committee noted in its report, one of the big disappointments is that Australia's National Plastics Plan is 'not fit for purpose'. It's disconnected and just doesn't have the appropriate goals required for Australia to reduce plastic pollution meaningfully.

Australia needs an updated national plastics plan. Responsibility for plastics must be shifted back onto plastic manufacturers, because 1.84 billion single-use cups are being wasted by every Australian each year, contributing to health, litter, landfill and climate change. According to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 130,000 tonnes of plastics leak into the marine environment in Australia every year. Globally, it's estimated that over 12 million tonnes of plastic leak into the oceans every year. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, based on current trends, there will be more plastic than fish by weight in the oceans by 2050.

I recently met with Boomerang Alliance, who has been shining a light on the impact of the use of plastic packaging, which, in Australia, is excessive, wasteful and dangerous to the environment, our wildlife and humans. They have developed a stewardship model packaging framework including guidelines for a best-practice scheme to inform the proposed Commonwealth scheme. The scheme includes guidelines and principles for packaging and circular economy arrangements. The framework is built on the premise that businesses producing or selling packaging have a responsibility beyond the designer use of their packaging to contribute towards it being collected, reused, recycled and composted.

In Dunkley, we have many passionate locals working hard to address the impact, such as through Plastic Free Places, which is supporting local businesses and organisations to adopt plastic-free practices—for example, carrying a reusable water bottle and taking your own cup for a takeaway coffee. It is small things like these that all of us can do to take action and make change.

Thanks to these local organisations, staff and dedicated volunteers from Dunkley and beyond that I have met with—the Boomerang Alliance, Plastic Free Places, BeachPatrol Frankston and the South East Councils Climate Change Alliance. Your work is immeasurable.

We are actively aware there is more we need to do as a government to reduce our reliance on single-use plastics—mainly derived from fossil fuels—whilst avoiding the emissions and waste materials plastic produces. We know there is more to do and are working to change legislation to ensure targets are mandatory, not voluntary, so they are adopted and achieved.

I want to finish on some words from the member for Makin, who said very aptly in his media release:

Without urgent action, plastic waste will increase and continue to negatively impact our oceans and waterways—

and humans—

Australia needs to act now to protect its natural environment for future generations.

Debate adjourned.

Generative AI has experienced extraordinary growth in recent years. From its origins in the 2010s as a tool for generating simple chat responses, it has now evolved into a sophisticated technology capable of producing videos, images and long-form essays.

Today, gen AI is being used extensively in workplaces, educational institutions and even by some within this very building. This technology is not a trend; it is reshaping the way we work, learn and interact. It is rapidly becoming embedded in workplaces, education systems and society at large. As a nation, it is crucial that we stay ahead of this technological curve.

Our government must establish clear regulations, guidelines and expectations to govern its use responsibly. This will safeguard Australians and ensure that we fully harness the potential of gen AI to enrich our society. Equally important is preparing students to engage with this technology safely and effectively. Educators must be equipped with the tools, knowledge and training to teach AI literacy meaningfully. Integrating AI into classrooms should enhance learning while preserving the critical thinking and creativity that underpin a quality education.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training recently concluded its inquiry into the use of generative artificial intelligence in the Australian education system. This inquiry began in May 2023 and involved 15 public hearings across Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney and online. It received over 100 submissions from stakeholders including state governments, universities, professional associations, trade unions, experts and private individuals. The committee's work resulted in the report Study buddy or influencer, which outlines 25 recommendations. These recommendations address the risk, opportunities and best practices with genAI in education, offering a clear roadmap for its responsible integration into our schools.

One of the report's key recommendations is for the Australian government, in collaboration with state and territory governments, to develop and fund a comprehensive implementation plan. This plan would deliver training for teachers, support staff, students, parents and policymakers to use genAI effectively. Educators need professional development through virtual and in-person training modules to ensure they can integrate AI into classrooms responsibly. The report also highlights significant risks associated with genAI.

Data protection is one of the most pressing concerns. Many AI tools collect and store the information entered into them and harvest data from across the internet. This raises serious privacy issues, especially for students who may unknowingly share personal information that becomes public and is owned by developers. Another critical risk is the growing digital divide. Low socioeconomic students, who may lack access to computers or school provided laptops are at a significant disadvantage compared to their wealthier inner-city counterparts. If we are committed to equity in education, bridging this divide is essential. All students must have access to the necessary technology as well as the training and support to use it effectively.

Australia is not alone in addressing these challenges. Countries such as the EU, Canada and the US are grappling with similar issues. Engaging with our international partners will allow us to develop consistent guidelines to share the best practices. By working together, we can create a global framework that supports the ethical and effective use of genAI in education. GenAI holds immense potential to enhance education, but it must be approached with foresight and care. The Study buddy or influencer report provides Australia with an opportunity to lead the way in integrating this technology into schools to benefit all students, regardless of their backgrounds. I would like to extend my thanks to the chair, the member for Bendigo, Lisa Chesters MP for her leadership throughout this inquiry and to the committee secretariat for their work in producing this report.

I rise to speak about the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training's inquiry into the use of generative artificial intelligence in the Australian education system and its final report Study buddy or influencer, released last August. I echo the comments of the member for Holt for the exemplary leadership by our chair and the enthusiasm and intelligent contribution of our colleagues and, indeed, the secretariat. I do start, though, by thanking the Minister for Education, the member for Blaxland, for referring this essential question to the committee after some overly enthusiastic advocacy for it from a nameless coalition member of the committee, who will not be named in this place.

When it comes to the future of our education system and the impact generative AI will have on it, we need to be bold, imaginative and optimistic. That is not where I started in this inquiry, and it is certainly not where I ended. Two years ago I stood in the main chamber and delivered my first speech, and I feared a demise in education standards as devices dislodged books in our education system and increased the incidence of concentration difficulties, impulsivity, sleep disturbance and poor language development. When ChatGPT was released onto the global market in November 2022, I feared that my most pessimistic predictions were all too proximate.

But in April of last year, 2023, I went to Europe and met with the leading public policy analysts in this space, Tia Loukkola and Andreas Schleicher from the OECD, and later that year in Belgium I met with the authors of the EU's Digital Services Act and those who were holding the pen on the EU's generative AI laws. I met with organisations whose job it was to equip and upscale the European teaching workforce to deal with technology and generative AI and, specifically, large language models.

So my fear about falling education standards was replaced by excitement about what it might mean in the Australian classroom. Our children are not performing well. Look at our PISA results. Between 2003 and 2022 Australia 's mean performance decreased by 37 points, which is almost 10 per cent, and we now have the most disrupted classrooms in the world. Equally, our teaching profession is in crisis. We need thousands more to come into the profession, and we need those who are already in to stay. Quite a number who go into teaching degrees these days have barely passed their own year 12 finishing certificate.

For reasons we all struggle to understand, teaching remains a poorly regarded profession in Australia, despite the enormous impact it has on every single one of us and the sensible investment in teacher attraction innovations like Teach for Australia, whose graduates are making a great impact across the country, especially in Western Port Secondary College in my electorate. There would not be a person in this place who is unable to identify a teacher who made it possible for them to stand here today. In my case that teacher was Mr Andrew Barnett. He taught me Australian history and economics, and he is the reason I stand here today. And without a doubt, everyone here across the parliament could name, in a millisecond, that teacher who changed their life. Yet it is estimated that by next year Australia will be short by at least 4,000 secondary teachers.

As this inquiry showed, generative AI gives us an ability to reimagine the education model from the bottom up. In an opinion piece that I wrote for the Financial Review a year ago, I imagined a world in which a hologram would appear in the classroom. It might be a hologram of Oscar Wilde, or it might be Shakespeare, or George Orwell. It would be imbued with the wisdom, writings, research and imagery of the time and be able to converse with schoolchildren in a language they understood as though the Bard were really there. At the time, even I felt as though I was describing a wonderland—except that a few months later Loughborough University in the UK did exactly that: it brought into a lecture hall a global expert from somewhere in the United States through Proto holoportation technology, to interact with students as though their lecturer were not thousands of kilometres away.

Recently I was listening, as I do almost every night—we are sad people in this place!—to a podcast about technology and how it is changing our lives. On Saturday night I listened to an episode of Your Undivided Attention, probably the best podcast for analysing tech for good, tech for bad and tech for terrible, as I like to think of it. In this episode psychologist Esther Perel described how someone had built a chatbot of her. Frustrated that he had been unable to secure a consultation appointment with her directly, he sat down and invented a large language model filled with all of her words, her teachings, her podcasts, her interviews and any other material he could find. 'AI Esther' didn't have trouble setting up an appointment. In Perel's own words, AI Esther 'fundamentally helped' the man, and the advice and consultation was 'illuminating' and gave him 'tremendous peace'. He did not need the real thing anymore. The bot had just enough wisdom to help get him through a difficult time.

I'm absolutely not recommending this model for psychology—not one bit. I am a big fan of all the messiness of human relations and the need for other human relations to help us make sense of them. But I'm not so pure when it comes to teaching, and we must recognise that this model has the potential for teaching our children—at least in part, at least the basics. You see, a large language model teacher designed for each particular child could move at the pace of that child, understand the proclivities of that child, and encourage or cajole the child in a way that would actually be effective and get them back to the learning table—because these devices already know our children better than we do. In this way, generative AI and edtech can be a huge and beneficial resource for our schooling system, but I hasten to add most forcefully that education cannot and must not just be about devices. Education must remain both a social and a human activity, and it must always be thus if we are to equip young people to make a contribution to this world. The edtech devices should be allowed to do what they can do better or what they can do in an environment where we just don't have the adequate skilled teacher workforce that we need, but we must preserve the human side with as much, if not more, expertise.

Throughout the hearings of this inquiry, I asked a number of our witnesses, 'Could you just tell me what human attributes you think we're still going to need in society in five, 10 or 15 years time?' It's a question I asked of my European interlocutors as well. Will critical thinking still be important? Will grammar and mathematics still be important? Will young people need to know geography? Will people need to know how to speak another language? Generative AI could wipe out these skills in less than a generation in the same way that ubiquitous smartphones have affected younger people's ability to read an analogue clock or to read a map. Throughout this inquiry, I learned that this notion has a discrete term in the context of generative AI: it's called 'cognitive offloading', meaning just parking some of those skills, tasks or knowledge that we simply don't need anymore—until we do. I fear that, without some degree of vigilance, cognitive offloading will take with it some of our creativity, our innovation, our resilience, our lateral thinking and, most concerningly, our wisdom.

In this country at this point, most of the public policy settings and alterations we are implementing regarding generative AI are being done as the AI plane flies through the sky. We are approaching it as we would any other education tool, like it's the calculator, the computer or the compass, but it is like none of those. Generative AI will change every aspect of the workforce. It will change every aspect of our learning journey as well as the skill sets we need at the end of it. Half of our current jobs will lose their tasks to large language models. The question is whether we recognise that in time and whether we guide generative AI, especially in education, for good.

One of the recommendations of this report is to maintain Australia 's competitive edge in this domain. Attending the TEQSA conference last year, I learnt that Australia had actually benefited enormously from the fact that ChatGPT was invented in November 2022, giving our university sector time to prepare for the academic year. That is why in recommendation 25 of the Study buddy or influencer report the committee recommends that the Australian government establish a centre for digital education excellence, modelled on the existing CRC centres, which would act as a thought leader in relation to both use and development of generative AI in school and university settings. I note that that recommendation was equally picked up and reiterated in recommendation 3 of the coalition members' additional comments to the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society's final report, issued last week.

I thank for their remarkable work Jason Lodge at the University of Queensland and Danny Liu at the University of Sydney, who are nothing short of visionaries in this space. We need to support and sustain not just their imagination but their practical exploration of what is possible within the Australian education system using this technology, this intervention and this revolution for our national benefit. There are many models to ensure that we can capture such thought leadership, and this report suggests we need to look at them with haste to make sure Australian minds shape the development and adoption of best practice in generative AI in the Australian education system.

This report, like the social media report released last week, provides a pathway to ensure Australia has a clear plan for promoting tech for good, managing tech for bad and eliminating tech for terrible.

Debate adjourned.

I'm going to read a quote:

Australia is a country of fires, floods, cyclones and other extreme weather events. Recent natural catastrophes have revealed a number of gaps in consumer protection when it comes to general insurance. The mass lodgement of business, home and contents insurance claims in the wake of multiple natural disasters that have hit Australia in recent years showed up these consumer protection gaps in stark detail.

Claimants had nowhere to turn and no means of redress when they were unable to have their insurance claims resolved in a timely manner. Victims of extreme weather events all over Australia faced unacceptable delays in the assessment of their claims; misunderstandings about the scope and extent of their polices; a lack of information or communication from insurers; discrepancies or inaccuracies in damage assessments or third-party expert reports; and token efforts at dispute resolution. Those who tried to assert their rights in the labyrinth of the claims process found themselves on the wrong side of a power imbalance.

Those words do not come from the Flood failure to future fairness report so ably chaired by the member for Fraser, Dr Daniel Mulino, in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. Those words come from a report on the now-defunct House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs chaired by the member for Moreton, 12 years ago, arising out of the natural disasters in North Queensland and across the country—particularly in South-East Queensland. He chaired that committee and I was on the committee. Those words from 12 years ago could have been included in the report done by the House of Representatives committee on economics. Not enough has changed.

As Dr Daniel Mulino, the member for Fraser, said in his media release when tabling this report: 'Too many cases were badly mishandled. Inconsistent decision-making meant neighbours received different outcomes after the same event. Long delays caused emotional, mental health and financial strain. More than two years on, many people still can't get into their homes. Initial offers were too low, which was especially problematic for cash settlements.'

The member for Fraser and the member for Moreton were saying almost the same words, 12 years apart, in two separate parliamentary committees. The insurance industry in this country should get a handle of itself and have a good hard look at itself. The Insurance Council of Australia, in their submission to this inquiry, blamed the consumers for living close to areas where there could be natural disasters, quoting former governor Lachlan Macquarie about the fact that these people had themselves to blame. That was the attitude of the Insurance Council of Australia initially when this inquiry was held.

Fortunately, the insurance companies moved, and statements of contrition and regret continued to operate during the submissions and public hearings of this inquiry. It doesn't matter where this inquiry moved to, whether in New South Wales, South-East Queensland, Cairns or Townsville—which I recall vividly—the insurance industry failed monumentally in addressing the natural disasters that took place and have not learned enough in the 12 years between these two parliamentary reports. Whether it's a government, community or insurance company response to floods and natural disasters, the response needs to be swift, direct and generous. That's what the Australian public expects.

This is a comprehensive report. The member Fraser did a brilliant job in relation to this report. I thank the secretariat for what they've done and the members of the committee who worked in a very bipartisan way—indeed, a tripartisan way, because there was one Independent member on the committee.

In 2022, floods devastated communities across Australia, in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and my home state of Queensland. More than 300,000 claims were lodged—more than any other natural disaster in Australia's history—but the insurance industry kept on saying this was unprecedented. They're actually in the business of insurance and have been in Australia since colonial times. So don't give us that. It is a bit like complaining if you're playing football saying, 'I'm worried about getting tackled, being penalised or losing a game.' If you're going to play the game, if you're going to be in the business of insurance, you've got to do better. You've got to look after your consumers better. Policyholders need to be treated better. Pooling mechanisms need to be strengthened. Preparation needs to be done better. Cash payments were too low. The idea was to get the money out and then not have anything more to do with it.

People were treated poorly. We heard a number of cases during the inquiry of insurers denying claims, then denying the internal dispute resolution process, and then the case went to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority and the insurers lost at that AFCA level. Their success rate at AFCA level was less than 20 per cent. If you're a football coach and you lose more than 80 per cent of the time, you're going to lose your job. The insurance industry was losing more than 80 per cent of the time in the internal procedure, which was being manifested into the external procedure. If you're losing at AFCA level more than 80 per cent of the time, there's a problem internally with your dispute resolution process. They didn't prepare well enough in any way at all. They kept on admitting that during the course of the process.

There are a number of recommendations—about 86 recommendations—and they need to be adopted. There are recommendations in terms of the general industry code of practice. It needs to be strengthened as a matter of priority. It needs to be registered with ASIC's approval. Further, the code needs to be contractually enforceable in relation to the insurer's responsibility. In addition to that, there should be guidance given by insurers to consumers at emergency hubs. Too often, insurance companies didn't bother turning up to these community hubs when there was a natural disaster. Too often, they didn't answer the phone. Too often, they didn't get back to their policyholders. Too often, the so-called meaningful timelines were just ignored by insurance companies. The supercilious and arrogant way the insurance companies dealt with so many of their customers and claimants was there for all to see in submission after submission and hearing after hearing.

We've got to do better at a federal and state government level, too. Deloitte Access Economics, after the 2011 floods, did a report that I remember that said if we spent about $250 million dollars on insurance, on preparation, on resilience and flood mitigation, we could save the taxpayer about $12.5 billion. We know that in 2014 the Productivity Commission found that 97 per cent of natural disaster funding from the Australian, state, territory and local governments go after the natural disasters. Only three per cent is invested in mitigation and resilience. We've committed $200 million in our Disaster Ready Fund, and we should be committing that or more. It was oversubscribed on the two occasions that people made applications for that funding. I got some in my electorate, and I'm deeply grateful. There's some that I wished I got as well, in terms of community hubs at Mount Crosby, for a start, and the Karana Downs area. There's an opportunity in the DRF process to substantially reduce the risks of flooding for communities exposed to high levels of risk, and I can see the benefit of flood mitigation in the roads up in Toogoolawah, in my electorate, in the Somerset and also at Ipswich showgrounds.

The Resilient Homes Program that was so successful in South-East Queensland needs to be rolled out nationally. It's one of the recommendations of this inquiry. We can do more. That program was a one-off for South-East Queensland. New South Wales had a similar one. We need to do this on a regular basis at a whole-of-government level. That's something that should be there—an available pool to retrofit, improve and raise homes to make sure that homes are more resilient. Whether it's in Ipswich, in my electorate—in Trumper Street, East Ipswich—or indeed in Goodna, in Ipswich, we've seen the benefit of the Resilient Homes Program. There are many recommendations here. I'm urging the government to pick them up and the insurance companies to do better.

Debate adjourned.

One in 20 Australians—that's 1.5 million people—lives with diabetes. That's a number which continues to increase. The nation faces a diabetes epidemic. Type 2 diabetes is by far the most common form in Australia. It's much more likely to affect people of lower socioeconomic standing—those people who have less access to clean water and to affordable fresh food, who have less time and space for regular physical activity and who often have less access to health care.

First Nations people have a frighteningly high incidence of type 2 diabetes. They develop it at a younger age, and their progression to potentially life-threatening complications is extraordinarily rapid. Diabetes is the leading contributor to the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In fact, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are nearly five times more likely to be hospitalised for diabetes related complications. Diabetes is the leading cause of death for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. The reasons for this are complex. They include both genetic predisposition and a raft of socioeconomic factors. Those factors include the urgent need for action on diet.

All Australians eat too many ultraprocessed foods and too many foods with added sugar and hidden chemicals. Unhealthy foods represent a third of Australian children's diets; one in four is overweight or obese. For too long, obesity and type 2 diabetes have been understood in this country as conditions which are caused by personal choices, but our committee's findings found that it's a lot more complex than that.

Forty-one per cent of the total energy intake of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is derived from what we would usually call discretionary foods and drinks—items which are high in saturated fat, salt and sugar. This is not always an issue of choice. The health committee visited rural communities, and it was tragic to see, in this day and age and in this country, that tap water was unsafe and undrinkable and that bottled water cost more than Coke. We went to a community in which the only vegetable in the shop was potatoes—and they were $11 a kilogram—and in which the only fruit that was available was frozen. All of those foodstuffs cost two or three times what they would in a capital city. Parents have to feed their kids. They'll do what they have to, to keep their kids happy. It's up to all of us to ensure that all Australians have access to affordable healthy food choices and safe water.

It's also an issue for people in the capital cities as well. Most Australians don't understand how much sugar is added to our food. The regulation of food manufacturers in this country is poor, whether we're talking about codes for infant formulas or health-star ratings for other foods. Their labelling is remarkably misleading and makes it impossible for parents. Forty-three per cent of the foods for infants and toddlers in our supermarkets exceed the recommended limits for sugar, often because they contain processed fruit sugars in the form of fruit juices, pastes or purees. Many breastmilk substitutes, or what are being marketed to young mums as toddler milks, are effectively just sugary drinks.

Our labelling codes are voluntary, and only 41 per cent of products display health-star ratings. Manufacturers of healthy products use those health-star ratings as a marketing tool, and those that don't market healthy foods just don't put a health-star rating on the packaging. The star system is also problematic because it doesn't distinguish between natural sugars and artificial sweeteners. It gives higher ratings to ultraprocessed foods and lower ratings to whole foods. We urgently need a mandatory food-labelling scheme which provides accurate and clear health information to consumers when they buy food for themselves and for their families.

Australians also deserve access to universal, quality health care. People living with diabetes in this country often have to contend with very high prices and long waiting times when they're trying to access vital medical supports, which can help them with their insulin management and their weight management. The health committee has called on the government to fund longer MBS consultations, to support expanded telehealth services and to broaden case coordination models for people with diabetes and obesity. We have to change our model of care in the face of the increasing prevalence of complex and chronic diseases in an ageing Australian population.

We also recommended to the government that we subsidise access to evidence based pharmaceuticals, monitoring devices and bariatric surgeries for people who are living with diabetes and obesity. GLP-1 receptor agonists and similar medications are game changers for Indigenous persons and young adolescents with type 2 diabetes. It is terrifying to see the number of adolescents with type 2 diabetes in some communities, particularly Indigenous communities. When I was a paediatrician, there was no such thing. Now it's becoming a really common problem, and it's going to affect the next generation in a way that will bite home very significantly in decades to come. GLP-1 receptor agonists facilitate rapid weight loss and improve diabetes control, They have a significant effect on long-term complications like renal failure, diabetic neuropathy, premature heart disease and peripheral vascular disease. They also have significant side effects, and their cost is extremely challenging. We have a healthcare system that is already struggling to deal with approvals processes and with the cost of new and emerging medications and technologies.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:11 to 13:03

Before we begin in continuation with the member for Kooyong, there was an error before where you didn't ask for leave—as you've already spoken on this. If you can just ask for leave to speak on this, that will be fine.

I ask leave of the chamber to speak again on this.

Leave granted.

We have to take action to prevent increasing intergenerational morbidity associated with diabetes. It is not overstating the case to say that the potential impact of this issue in the decades to come on population health but also on our economy is terrifying. We do not plan well enough for long-term, large-scale healthcare provision in this country. The lack of availability of bariatric surgery outside the private hospital system is a case in point.

It was a privilege to be a member of the parliamentary committee which investigated diabetes in Australia, but our efforts will be wasted if the government does not act on the committee's findings. Far too many government committee reports gather dust on shelves. It's not just a waste of the committee's time, effort and money. It's not just an insult to the hundreds of people who gave their time and the benefit of their experience in the undertaking of this committee. It's also the opportunity cost of not taking action on what is an emerging public health emergency in this country.

We need to take action in the simplest and most fundamental of ways. We need to improve regulation of the food and drinks industry in this country and we need to improve the provision of health care for complex and chronic diseases. If we do not, we will all bear the cost and the loss associated with the plague that the emerging diabetes epidemic represents.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:05 to 16: 37

I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places and I ask all present to do so.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the Chamber.

by leave—I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 16:39