I've received a message from the Senate informing that Senator Thorpe has been appointed a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the 2025 election, that Senator Thorpe has been appointed a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, that Senator Brockman has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that Senator Collins has been appointed a member of that committee.

():  I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

In June 2020, in the days when oppositions actually developed policy, I went to the National Press Club to deliver my vision statement on science. My opening words were, 'One day, when the pandemic is over …'. With the spectre of a second wave of COVID then hanging over us, I talked about how the pandemic had been a wake-up call for Australia. I pointed out the anomaly that we were the only OECD country without an equivalent of America's Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Knowing that a stronger future for our country depended on that anomaly being addressed, I called for the establishment of an Australian Centre for Disease Control, properly resourced and independent—a CDC that would provide governments with consistent, rapid advice and a CDC with a focus on preparedness for any future pandemics, including drills and exercises.

We must not forget that one of the factors that saw Australia even more vulnerable to COVID and its impacts was that we hadn't had a pandemic drill since Exercise Sustain under the Rudd government a dozen years earlier. The grim consequence of the coalition government's complacency was that we were woefully underprepared for what came. As the COVID-19 inquiry report would eventually lay bare, Australia went into the pandemic with no playbook for the pandemic, limited readiness of the National Medical Stockpile, and badly stretched aged- and healthcare systems.

A few months after my vision statement I used my budget-in-reply speech to commit a future Labor government to establishing an Australian Centre for Disease Control to bring us into line with other advanced economies. I'm pleased that, with this legislation, having followed considerable work to make sure we got it right, we're once again turning a vision from opposition into a reality delivered in government and maintaining our momentum in delivering for all Australians.

We are heeding one of the core recommendations of the COVID-19 inquiry: to ensure that in the future we are as prepared, as a nation, as we can be. So what we did was the systematic, orderly, considered development of policy into progress that defines the way that this government operates. We came into government with a commitment. We established the COVID-19 inquiry first and waited to hear that evidence in our first term. We took that influence and used that input into policy, and then, of course, we introduced the legislation in this term. Now, these amendments will improve that legislation on the basis of being prepared to consider advice and the process which we have gone through.

This will make the ACDC operational from 1 January. It will be an independent statutory agency led by a director-general. It will bring together critical information and experts to protect Australia from diseases and other threats to public health. The Australian CDC will provide high-quality analysis and advice on public health risks to governments and the Australian community. It will also promote and coordinate action to prepare for and respond to these tasks. Just as we've worked to apply the economic lessons of the pandemic by investing in our manufacturing capacity, strengthening our supply chains and building our economic self-reliance, we must learn the health lessons of that time as well. That is what this legislation does.

On a small sidenote, you couldn't ask for a more Australian acronym than ACDC, though if this ACDC were to have a theme song—and I know raising contemporary music is dangerous in this House—it would have to be 'Highway to Hell'. Once again, our government is delivering for Australians, delivering carefully and delivering methodically. We are a government that looks to Australia's future armed with the lessons of the recent past and an understanding that Australians are always best served by a government that governs not just for today but for the long-term future of this nation. I commend the amendments and the bill to the House.

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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today the Albanese Labor government is legislating for streaming services to have guaranteed Australian content.

This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and subordinate legislation to allow for an Australian screen content requirement on subscription video-on-demand (streaming) services.

In the National Cultural Policy 'Revive: a place for every story, a story of every place', the Australian government committed to introduce requirements for Australian screen content on streaming services to ensure continued access to local stories and content.

We should never underestimate how important it is for Australians to see ourselves on screen. It helps us to better understand ourselves and our neighbours and allows world to see us.

Australian stories play an important role in shaping Australia's national identity, fostering social inclusion and encouraging cultural expression. They are our greatest cultural asset. They help build a sense of community, collective wellbeing and a shared identity. They reflect and define who we are as a nation and make us recognisable on the international stage.

Australian stories help make sense of our past, define ourselves in the present and promote our people, our creativity and our country to the world. They bring people together and enable the exchange of experiences, ideas and perspectives.

All Australians benefit when we are represented by and can hear our voices in the stories brought to the big and small screen.

Major structural changes in audience viewing habits have meant that contemporary Australian audiences are increasingly engaging with content across multiple platforms. Public broadcasters, commercial broadcasters, cable and streaming are all part of Australia's television landscape now and into the future.

In relation to the public broadcasters, the ABC Charter includes the requirement for the ABC to broadcast programs that contribute to Australia's sense of national identity, inform and entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the community.

The SBS Charter states that the SBS's principal function is to provide multilingual and multicultural broadcasting and digital media services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians, and in doing so, reflect Australia's multicultural society.

Australian content quotas for commercial television were first introduced in the 1960s to ensure that Australians had access to stories and to see their culture, language and values reflected on screen.

These local content requirements were updated in the 1990s to apply to free­to-air and to other subscription television broadcasters, requiring broadcasters to commission a minimum level of Australian content every year. This is either based on hours, in the case of free-to-air commercial television broadcasters, or, in the case of other subscription broadcasters, a percentage of their total drama expenditure in Australia.

These requirements stabilise the market, and act as a safeguard for the Australian screen production sector.

But, unlike free-to-air broadcasting services and other subscription television services, streaming services have no requirements to make Australian content available on their platforms. The ready availability of content produced in other countries risks drowning out our own Australian stories. Without government intervention there is no guarantee that streaming services will produce and make Australian content available to Australian consumers.

As more Australians watch screen content through streaming services, the government's goal in introducing these requirements is to guarantee a minimum level of expenditure on new Australian content on these services. It will ensure that access to Australian content—and Australian stories—is guaranteed to Australians regardless of the platform on which they choose to view it.

Since the policy was endorsed in Australia's National Cultural Policy, Revive in 2023, there's been an extraordinary amount of engagement with stakeholders involving the Minister for Communications Anika Wells, and before that the now attorney-general Michelle Rowland as well as the arts envoy Susan Templeman.

The extensive and genuine consultation process has informed the development of this requirement. The views of stakeholders and the analysis undertaken throughout the consultation process has informed the development of the Australian screen content requirements being introduced today. Consultation took longer than we would have liked but we were determined to get this right.

The proposed requirement introduced today is consistent with Australia's international trade obligations.

The Australian screen content requirement will apply to streaming services operating in Australia with at least a million Australian subscribers.

The requirement is for streaming services to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure for Australia on eligible program formats in Australia and on new Australian programs.

Eligible program formats are drama, children's, documentary, arts and educational programs. Total program expenditure for the Australian market includes the cost of programs commissioned or acquired specifically for the Australian market, as well as programs which were made overseas and not specifically licensed for Australia, otherwise known as global content—referred to frequently as global licensing. This global content can represent a large proportion of streaming services' catalogues.

There are some streaming companies operating in Australia that only have global content. If global content wasn't included, and the requirement was based solely on a streaming service's total drama expenditure in Australia, then there is a risk that services could in fact end up with no requirement at all. If global content were to be excluded from any requirement, international streaming services could simply minimise their expenditure in Australia and avoid any obligation. Simply put, 10 per cent of nothing, would deliver nothing.

The requirement also includes a voluntary option for streaming services to acquit their requirements based on a calculation of 7½ per cent of their Australian revenue.

The requirement uses the definition of Australian content which is set out in the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children's Television) Standards 2020. This is the definition that is already used for commercial free-to­air and other subscription television broadcasters. It is therefore the appropriate consistent definition.

Streaming services covered by the new requirements will report to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will administer the Australian screen content requirement.

Streaming services can acquit their obligation over a three-year period. This principle was put strongly to the government during consultation by the streaming services and reflects the lumpy nature of investment cycles in high quality programs.

There will also be a statutory review conducted four years after the commencement to make sure the requirement is operating effectively.

The Australian government committed to ensuring Australians have access to local stories wherever they choose to watch their screen content. This bill fulfils that commitment.

In introducing the legislation, I must acknowledge the numerous stakeholders who have long advocated for there to be an Australian content requirement on streaming platforms: the Screen Producers Association, present in the gallery at the moment; the media alliance, the MEAA; and all of the guilds as well as many people who don't, in fact, work in the industry at all, but who simply have a connection to the screen through watching great Australian stories.

The path to this legislation has been long. The streamers hadn't even arrived in Australia in 2013 when I was a new arts minister. I noticed at the time you can log onto Apple iTunes and choose a movie—and come back to your TV half an hour later—and it would be ready to watch. I said at the time it's not going to be long before we are watching the internet through our televisions. I knew then that the television quotas that we had available on free-to-air television weren't going to help. I wish Australia had acted then, we didn't have time before we lost office. But we are acting now.

Since their introduction in Australia, streaming services have created some extraordinary shows. In the last few years, many of them have produced great Australian content. A minority are yet to produce any. This legislation is not a criticism of the streaming businesses in Australia. It is an endorsement of Australian stories, a celebration of Australian creatives and a show of respect for the Australian audience.

This bill will guarantee Australians will have access to Australian stories, now and into the future—it will ensure that no matter which remote control you're holding, Australian stories will be at your fingertips.

Australians will see themselves, know each other and the world will meet us.

Debate adjourned.

I've been given two copies of the speech; I'll only read it once. I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025 amends the Migration Act 1958to establish the legislative framework for a public register of approved work sponsors to be published and maintained on the Department of Home Affairs website.

This bill is a necessary and important step to supporting a better targeted, temporary skilled work visa program as part of the Albanese Labor government's migration strategy.

The amendments in this bill will strengthen protections for migrant workers. The register of approved work sponsors will enhance oversight and transparency mechanisms for the temporary skilled work visa program, helping to tackle migrant worker exploitation and misuse of the visa system.

This register will provide an important resource to check that a sponsoring employer is legitimate.

The publication of a register on the department's website that includes the name of the approved work sponsor, their ABN, their business postcode, the number of sponsored workers and their occupations will promote transparency and accountability.

The register will complement and strengthen the managed approach to Australia's visa system—increasing protections for migrant workers and ensuring a stronger workforce, which in turn strengthens the Australian community.

Migrants make a valuable contribution not only to Australia's prosperity but also to our communities, our national identity, and to our connections across the world. They have the right to be safe and feel safe.

This bill will help ensure we have the skills we need for the future and, ultimately, make sure the system is working in the interests of all Australians.

This bill is an important step towards implementing the Albanese Labor government's migration strategy.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That, in accordance with section 10B of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the House approve the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment (Indexation No. 2) Determination 2025 made on 4 November 2025 and presented to the House on 5 November 2025.

Question agreed to.

The question before the House is amendments (1) and (2) moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

The second unresolved question is that amendments (3) and (4), moved by the honourable member for Indi, be agreed to.

To assist the House, I thought it would be useful to give some explanation, given that these amendments were debated last night in the Federation Chamber and there may be many members who didn't have a chance to hear that debate.

In a bill full of antidemocratic reforms that will worsen transparency and accountability, these amendments are particularly important because they go to the question of the expansion of cabinet exemptions. Under the bill that is before us, the test of exemptions is elastic and will be stretched in practice, meaning the public's right to access government information can be determined by whether the public servant thinks it would involve an exempt document. While you can appeal, many people will simply give up on that.

It's already incredibly difficult under the current FOI Act to access documents that have gone anywhere near the cabinet room, and years of litigation have established a very high threshold for the disclosure of documents involved in the cabinet process. I fully respect and support the principle of cabinet solidarity. There must be rigorous and appropriate protections for cabinet confidentiality where it's needed, but, under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition, which referred specifically to deliberation and decision-making. I'm also extremely concerned that the previous 'dominant purpose' test will be replaced by a 'substantive purpose' test, increasing the threshold even higher.

Under these proposals, a document could be exempt simply because it helped to inform the minister in relation to an issue the cabinet will consider. I believe, and I think many people do—civil society organisations from right across the nation say that this is a long bow, way too long. This is a serious extension of what is considered cabinet confidentiality. My amendments seek to remedy that issue, and I really ask members of the House to think very carefully about what we're doing under these freedom-of-information laws, consider their vote and support these amendments.

I didn't want to interrupt the member during that speech. I just want to note for the House that this entire debate of consideration in detail happened in the Federation Chamber last night and went for two hours. The minister was there, and, effectively, it sounds like we are about to repeat a debate that the House has had in the Federation Chamber, which is a formal part of this House. It's a formal part of our operations. If we're going to get into a situation where it is felt there is a need that whatever is debated in the Federation Chamber needs to be redebated here, that would be a fundamental change in the way the House has operated ever since the Federation Chamber was established. To that end, I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to the Freedom of Information Bill 2025:

(1) the House note that all proposed amendments to the bill have been fully debated in the Federation Chamber and returned to the House with unresolved questions;

(2) the unresolved questions on the bill being put immediately;

(3) the questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put immediately; and

(4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

I won't delay the House long. I just want to make it clear and make the point that this is why we tried to have the debate in the House the other day. Rather than going backwards and forwards between here and the Fed Chamber, these matters could have been dealt with in their entirety here. I won't take it any further—

Okay, thank you.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

The member for Fisher is seeking a point of order, but the House has just resolved to pass a resolution, so I've got to put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The member for Fisher has indicated that he wants to raise a point of order.

Yes, thanks, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise this to your attention, and this goes to the neutrality of the chair, which is a fundamental principle of this place. The member for Wentworth stood in her place trying to speak on the amendments moved by the member for Indi. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, who was in the chair at the time, did not give the member for Wentworth the call. The members on this side of the House were alerting the Deputy Speaker to the member for Wentworth being on her feet. This is not the first time this has happened, and I would ask that you inquire into the issue. Every single member in—

Okay, resume your seat. You've made your point. Resume your seat. It's not a speech or a statement. You've raised the issue at the first opportunity to speak. I understand that. I'm aware of the issue, and I'll give a statement regarding the issue, but I'll hear from the Leader of the House first.

Just to the point of order, I'd remind the member of standing order 47, which allows motions to suspend standing orders to be moved at any time. That's exactly what happened.

Yes. The standing order enables, mid-sentence or mid-behaviour, for that to be moved. I like to give, and all the chairs like to give, all members a fair go, and I think that has been evident. I disagree with the member's statement—the way that it was phrased. What will also help is if the House in order and there are not people just standing around and making interjections, as I believe occurred at the time.

Honourable members interjecting—

No, we're not going any further with this. I've given a statement to the House. I've recognised that. But I want to reinforce what the Leader of the House says: at any time under that standing order—during a debate, when someone's on their feet or not on their feet—a suspension motion can be moved. So that is the standing order. If you're not happy with the standing order, I can appreciate that, but they're the rules that we all operate under.

Now we're going to move to the unresolved question on the amendments moved by the member for Indi. The question is that amendments (3) and (4) moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

The question is that the amendments made by the Federation Chamber be agreed to.

The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The question is the bill be read a third time.

I move:

That the House:

(1) permits a Member who is present in the House or Federation Chamber but is unable to address it, by reason of chronic illness or disability, to present a copy of the Member's speech for incorporation in Hansard, provided that the speech conforms to the standing and sessional orders in its language and content; and

(2) notes for the avoidance of doubt that a contribution made in this way is considered to form part of proceedings of the House.

In speaking on the motion I would advise the House that I consulted with the Manager of Opposition Business on this, and this is the next step in what changes the parliament have been gradually made to ensure we are more accessible chamber, given different issues that people face over time.

My thanks to the Leader of the House. The coalition supports this motion and the government's intention.

Question agreed to.

Under standing order 45(c), I move:

That order of the day No. 2, government business, be called on immediately.

To advise members of the impact of this—there is a notice on the Notice Paper to make sure we can get through all of the amendments in a reasonable time. I'm going to have a go at not moving that and just see if we can try to get through things quickly. I'll look at the clock as we're going.

I respect that members will have commitments and planes that have been booked for people who live a long way away, so my first option, if it looks like we're running out of time, will be to cut short—not eliminate but cut short—the one hour of debate of the matter of public importance. We'd probably just have the first couple of speakers or something like that. But, certainly, the MPI will start; there's no world where we wouldn't do that today.

But, if we end up in a situation where the motion that's on the Notice Paper to limit the time of debate on each amendment is required because we're going long, I'll move it in those situations. I'd ask members to be mindful of the different circumstances of other members in trying to make sure that we can have every amendment moved but still get through the business of the House in a reasonable time.

Question agreed to.

I rise to speak on the Albanese Labor government's environmental reform package—the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills—which demonstrates Labor's latest attempt to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Let me be clear from the outset: I care very deeply about our environment. I represent more than 1.4 million square kilometres, the largest electorate in Australia. When you cover that kind of ground, you see our country in a way that few others do—that few others will truly appreciate. And I'll tell you what I see when I look out the window of those little—and also those large—planes as I traverse Durack.

I see thousands of kilometres of coastline—pristine, rugged and breathtaking. I see the Ningaloo Reef, one of the great natural wonders of the world, home to whale sharks, turtles and coral that Australians and visitors travel halfway across the globe to experience. I take great joy in seeing the red earth of the Pilbara and the Kimberley, a landscape that tells the story of the continent's ancient history, its strength and its spirit.

But I also see the farms, the stations and the mines, which are the heartbeat of the Australian economy—the producers, the pastoralists and the workers who get up before dawn to grow our food and export our resources and who help to keep our lights on. These industries sustain local communities, they underpin our national prosperity, and they provide the royalties and the tax revenue that fund our hospitals, our schools and, indeed, our environmental protections. That is why I say this: we will not support reform that puts ideology ahead of practicality. We will not support measures that threaten Australian jobs, deter investment or weaken our productivity.

Let me be 100 per cent clear on this: not all mining projects—or, for that matter, renewable energy projects—will get environmental approval, and nor should they. That's because not all projects will be able to demonstrate their ability to coexist, without undue damage, with the environment. What project proponents need is a quick no or a quick yes to their environmental approvals. That's not what these bills will do. We will therefore not be supporting this package of bills, as they are about centralising control in Canberra, expanding bureaucracy and stifling the very industries that underpin our national prosperity.

It's worth reflecting on how we got here. The process began when the then environment minister, now Leader of the Opposition, commissioned Professor Graeme Samuel to undertake a review of the EPBC Act. Following the review, the coalition government introduced legislation to undertake reforms that would have improved the system, but, unfortunately, the Labor Party teamed up with their bedfellows, the Greens political party, to block it. Now, a few years later, Labor has returned to parliament with its own version, one which is more complex, more bureaucratic and more hostile to business than the 26-year-old system it's seeking to replace.

This isn't their first attempt to. During their last term, the then environment minister, Minister Plibersek, promised time and again that Labor's full EPBC overhaul would be delivered by the end of 2023, but those deadlines came and went. The reform was deferred, delayed, watered down and, ultimately, shelved. Even Labor's own state premiers had lost faith. Of course I reference my home state of Western Australia. WA Labor Premier Roger Cook was so concerned with the economic impact of Minister Plibersek's so-called nature-positive laws that he called the Prime Minister to overrule her. He told the Prime Minister directly, apparently, that the reforms would destroy confidence in the resources sector. Well, they are true words.

As a result, we saw an embarrassing series of headlines—the reforms would be introduced in the Senate, and then they wouldn't be introduced in the Senate—which eventually concluded with the plan being quietly abandoned. The Prime Minister decided these reforms should wait until after the election so as not to risk seats, particularly across Western Australia. Following the election he decided it was time for a new minister who might be able to deliver some sensible reform. Unfortunately, we struck out again, and this new minister has now sought to introduce a 1,500-page monstrosity that business, industry and stakeholders right across the board have described as unworkable. The Business Council of Australia, who I note got a good shout-out from the Prime Minister during question time yesterday, has warned that 'without significant changes to this bill we risk embedding a system that's even slower and more complex and lacks the clarity and certainty needed for investment'. That is a damning verdict, demonstrating that this legislation is riddled with problems. It paints a very grim picture for jobs, investment and productivity in our country.

Let's start with the so-called 'unacceptable impact' provisions. There are eight pages outlining 37 separate definitions which would limit the number of projects that could proceed. Industry has been crystal clear: these definitions must be removed from the legislation and placed into the environmental standards. Then there is the net gain requirement—vague, undefined and open to endless litigation. The definition absolutely needs greater certainty, with guardrails to ensure certainty for industry and certainty for our environment. The government also wants project proponents to report scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, duplicating the safeguard mechanism and creating a backdoor climate trigger that every resources investor fears.

Let's not forget the proposed environmental protection agency. Labor promised the EPA for two elections. After four years, this is what they've come up with—a structure that is completely unworkable. The proposed EPA would assess, approve and enforce its own decisions. It would act as student, teacher and principal all at once, marking its own homework—completely unworkable. The CEO of this new agency would be a statutory officer who could not be dismissed by the minister, not even for failure to perform. There is no binding statement of expectations, no accountability to government and no mechanism to ensure the CEO acts in the national interest. That is not independence; it's unaccountable power.

This is the system that the Labor government claims will 'speed up approvals' and 'boost productivity'. Australia is in the middle of a productivity crisis. That's not a talking point from the coalition whip's office; it's a fact. It's important those opposite know we are now ranked as second last in the OECD. Only Mexico performs worse than Australia. Yet Labor is pushing through reforms that will make it harder, slower and more expensive to get major projects approved. Let's not forget that, when Labor was re-elected in May, they quickly declared that productivity under them was actually in serious trouble, and so the Treasurer and the Prime Minister announced they would hold a productivity roundtable. Sounds good, doesn't it?

This was then rebranded as an economic reform roundtable. I'm not sure that it amounted to much, except maybe the suggestion of spare bedrooms being taxed. Mining royalties, oil and gas exports, critical minerals, agriculture—these are the industries that pay for our hospitals, our schools and our roads. In 2023-24 alone, the mining industry paid $59.4 billion in taxes and royalties to Australian governments. Labor's reforms threaten that foundation. They will send investment offshore, cost Australian jobs and place a handbrake on regional economies. Labor's division over resources is now legendary. They delayed a decision on the very important decision in relation to a project in my electorate of Durack, that of course being the North West Shelf gas extension, until after the election, and then they sacked the minister responsible.

Now a new minister has stepped in with preliminary approval while the Prime Minister recruits a Greens defector who's openly hostile to the project. Investors—whether in oil, gas or critical minerals—need confidence that Australia is a stable, reliable destination for capital. Right now, they're not getting that from Labor. While Labor ties industry up in knots with red and green tape, its record on actual environmental outcomes—well, that's appalling. Australia's just recorded its 39th extinction. The Christmas Island shrew was declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This comes after former environment minister Plibersek's public commitment that there would be 'no new extinctions' under the Albanese government.

Then there's Labor's multimillion dollar handout to the far-left Environmental Defenders Office. The coalition warned from day one that this was a reckless decision. And guess what? We were right. The EDO has been condemned by the Federal Court for coaching witnesses and fabricating evidence in the Santos Barossa gas pipeline case. Despite this disgraceful record, the Albanese government has continued to fund them with not just the original $8.3 million grant but ongoing annual funding that will see the EDO receive around $15 million by the end of the decade. This is taxpayers' money being funnelled into an activist law firm that works to shut down projects, destroy jobs and strangle Australia's economic growth, and yet Labor claims to support productivity.

If you want proof that this government is distracted and has all the wrong priorities, look no further than the algal bloom disaster along South Australia's coastline. For months, scientists warned the Albanese government to take some action. Eighteen months ago, they raised the alarm. Four months ago, when dead fish were washing up on the beaches, they raised it again. The government did nothing. Now over 14,000 marine animals have died. Local fishing and tourism businesses—well, they're suffering, and coastal ecosystems have been devastated. It's a misconception that the coalition does not care about the environment. As a former minister for the environment, I know that we do care. I often have colleagues discuss multiple environmental issues with me to ensure that we know what's happening with our environment.

When we were in government, we sought to protect the environment while supporting the economy. It's not always easy to protect the environment and look after the economy. It takes hard work. Under the Morrison government, investment in renewable energy hit record highs, with renewables making up almost one-third of our energy mix. Australia had the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar, with one in four homes having solar on their roof. Again, this demonstrates that we are not anti renewables. There are some places where it makes sense and some where it simply does not. It is completely different for an individual to choose to put solar panels on their roof than it is to force farmers to have transmission lines run across their properties.

When we were in government, we also led the way on waste and recycling by establishing the $200 million Recycling Modernisation Fund that leveraged $1 billion in industry co-investment. We launched the ReMade in Australia trademark to ensure Australians could trust that products were recycled and manufactured here at home. We invested billions to improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef and delivered two dedicated threatened species strategies.

We were a government that delivered environmental protection and economic growth together. It's possible, but it's hard work. Labor, by contrast, has delivered division, delay and dysfunction. In its current form, Labor's EPBC reform package is unworkable. It's bad for business, bad for investment and bad for Australia's future. It hands more power to bureaucrats and activists while stripping accountability from ministers. It risks green lawfare and constant litigation. It undermines the very industries that fund our prosperity.

These bills represent a real test for the Prime Minister and the Labor government. Will they negotiate with the coalition to protect jobs, support industry and help enable the 'Future Made in Australia' that they always talk about? Or will they side with the extreme Greens political party, who don't believe in just about any project getting underway and whose policies, if enacted, could only result in a weaker and more dependent Australia? What will it be, Prime Minister?

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

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

I move amendment 11 as circulated in my name:

(11) Schedule 1, item 323, page 229 (after line 12), at the end of section 177DI, add:

(4) The Minister must publish a copy of the annual report on the Department's website within 20 days of receiving the report.

I'm speaking today about the importance of transparency in the operation of the new environmental offset system and, in particular, the amendment requiring that the minister publish the restoration contribution holder's annual report within 20 days of receiving it, which is what this amendment is. Now, this might sound like a small administrative change, but it is in fact an important improvement in transparency. Under the new framework, developers can pay a restoration contribution charge instead of directly securing their own offsets. That money goes into a central fund, which is then responsible for delivering restoration projects across the country. That means that we're asking Australians to trust that the offsets purchased on their behalf are actually delivering real, measurable gains for nature. And trust requires transparency.

This annual report will provide the first real window into whether that trust is being earned, and it will show where the money is going, which projects are being funded, what impacts they're offsetting, how much has been paid and whether these projects are actually achieving ecological outcomes. It's not enough for this information to exist somewhere in the system; it must be publicly available. That's what this amendment ensures—that this report is published within 20 days of reaching the minister's desk—because, if the public can't see the data, accountability disappears. And, without accountability, confidence in the offset system will crumble.

We've seen this story before. In New South Wales and Queensland, centralised offset funds have struggled to deliver promised outcomes, and part of the problem has been opacity. The public couldn't tell if projects were working, or even where they were. We can't afford to repeat these mistakes at a national level.

Offsets are meant to repair damage, not to hide it, and the only way to know if they're working is to measure, report and publish the results. This amendment makes sure that that happens. The offsets fund represents a potential single point of failure for these entire reforms, so making sure that the public can see whether they're working or not will allow us to continue to improve these laws.

So I thank the government for considering this amendment in good faith, and I commend it to the House.

I want to thank the member for Curtin for the engagement that's happened with the government, including with me, through question time as well, in raising concerns about this issue. The government will support this amendment. It improves transparency and accountability for the effective exercise of the functions and powers of the restoration contributions holder.

This amendment would require the minister to publish the annual report on the exercise of the restoration contributions holder's functions and powers on the department's website within 20 days of receiving that report from the restoration contributions holder. One of the key pillars of these reforms is enshrining greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making, and this amendment speaks to that.

Once again, and on behalf of the minister for the environment from the other place, I thank the member for Curtin for her constructive engagement on these reforms.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) and (12) to (15) together, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 228, page 96 (after line 26), after subsection 134(3AC), insert:

(3AD) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the Restoration Contribution Holder has advised that it is not likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered and will result in a net gain.

(3AE) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the matter is on the excluded matters list.

(2) Schedule 1, item 230, page 97 (after line 27), after subsection 134(3G), insert:

Conditions requiring payment of restoration contribution charge

(3H) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of restoration contribution charge, the Minister must:

(a) consider whether it is feasible to instead attach a condition requiring the holder of the approval holder to instead deliver restoration action to compensate for the damage cause by the action; and

(b) if the Minister considers that that is feasible, attach a such a condition.

(3J) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect, the Minister must seek advice from the Restoration Contribution Holder on whether it is likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered, and will result in a net gain.

(3) Schedule 1, page 97 (after line 27), after item 230, insert:

230A After section 134

Insert:

134AA Excluded matters list

(1) The Restoration Contributions Holder must:

(a) develop a list of matters protected by a provision of Part 3 for which no general restoration actions are likely to be available due to the scarcity of the affected matter; and

(b) make the list available for public inspection on the Department's website.

(2) The list is to be known as the excluded matters list.

(4) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (after line 19), after section 157A, insert:

157AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels

Despite section 157A, the Minister must not determine that the taking of an action is a national interest proposal if the action involves the production or extraction of:

(a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or

(b) coal.

(5) Schedule 1, item 291, page 139 (lines 23 to 35), omit subsection 157D(2).

(6) Schedule 1, item 291, page 141 (lines 10 to 22), omit subsection 157F(2).

(7) Schedule 1, item 292, page 143 (after line 7), after section 157H, insert:

157HA Production or extraction of fossil fuels

Despite section 157H, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision of Part 3 or this Chapter if the action involves the production or extraction of:

(a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or

(b) coal.

(8) Schedule 1, item 292, page 145 (line 33) to page 146 (line 11), omit subsection 157N(2).

(9) Schedule 1, item 292, page 148 (lines 20 to 32), omit subsection 157R(2).

(10) Schedule 1, item 323, page 212 (after line 32), after paragraph 177CP(1)(f), insert:

(fa) to provide advice for the purposes of subsection 134(3J); and

(fb) to maintain the excluded matters list; and

(12) Schedule 1, item 432, page 234 (after line 29), after section 302A, insert:

302AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels

Despite section 302A, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision (including a regulation made under a provision) of this Part if the action involves the production or extraction of:

(a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or

(b) coal.

(13) Schedule 1, item 432, page 258 (line 30) to page 259 (line 8), omit subsection 302F(2).

(14) Schedule 1, item 432, page 261 (lines 19 to 31), omit subsection 302J(2).

(15) Schedule 1, item 612, page 364 (after line 11), after the definition of environment protection order in section 528, insert:

excluded matters list: see subsection 134AA(2).

I commend the government for taking on the difficult task of reforming our national environmental laws. It has been more than two decades since the EPBC Act was passed, and it's well overdue for an update. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore trust, protect nature and deliver faster, fairer decisions for business. But that promise will fall flat if the reforms create new loopholes that make these reforms irrelevant, because even the strongest framework means little if you can simply step around it.

Under the current EPBC Act, the minister has what's known as a national interest exemption—a break-glass power, designed for genuine emergencies like natural disasters. It's a tool used rarely—only 31 times since 2000—and mostly in good faith. It's not perfect, but it's understood: it exists for extreme situations, not convenience.

The new reforms go much further. They introduce a new pathway—a national interest proposal or approval that allows the minister to bypass almost all environmental safeguards whenever they decide a project is in the national interest. Unlike the original exemption, this one isn't limited to emergencies. It could be used for anything from housing to energy projects, with no clear limits on what the minister can take into account. That means a minister could approve a project even if it causes unacceptable impacts, even if it pushes a species to the brink of extinction. Every environmental safeguard in this bill—the mitigation hierarchy, the net gain standard and the unacceptable impact test—could be waived by the stroke of a pen. This isn't a safeguard. It's a shortcut, and it undermines the integrity of the entire system. It's bad for the environment, and it's not great for business either. Investors can't make long-term decisions on the hope that they will be deemed to be in the national interest. They need certainty, not ministerial discretion. Let's be clear. You can't streamline approvals by cutting out the environment. This national interest pathway is an admission of failure, a way of saying, 'We can't balance environmental protection with economic development, so we'll just make it optional.'

The amendments that I'm putting up today would put some safeguards around this power. First, if the government insists on keeping the new pathway, fossil fuel projects must never qualify. It would be absurd to claim that new coal or gas projects are in the national interest when science tells us they are fundamentally against it. Second, there must be full transparency whenever this power is used. The current bill would let the minister redact the statement of reasons, hiding the rationale for bypassing environmental law. If a project truly is in the national interest, the government should have the courage to explain why. Ideally, this new pathway should be removed completely, but the legislation is complex, and in the time given I haven't been able to draft a complete removal of this new pathway.

Another major weakness in this package is the offsets fund. On paper, it's a neat idea—the Restoration Contributions Holder. When a project can't fully avoid environmental damage, the developer pays into a central fund that delivers restoration projects on their behalf. In theory, it creates efficiency. In practice, it's risky. We've seen this model before in New South Wales, in Queensland and in the Pilbara, and it consistently underdelivers. Developers destroy habitat, pay into the fund and walk away. The fund then struggles to find suitable offsets, and nature ends up footing the bill. That's the pay-to-destroy problem—a cheque is written, the project proceeds, and the promise of restoration fades into paperwork.

Without strong guardrails, this fund risks becoming the single point of failure for the entire reform package, so I'm introducing a series of amendments to increase the likelihood it actually works for business, for government and, most importantly, for nature. First, limit the use of the fund. It should be the last resort, not the default, and my amendments ensure that there is another layer to the mitigation hierarchy. Proponents must seek to offset directly where they must follow principles such as like-for-like and net gain before using the fund, which does not have to follow the same principles. Second, ensure suitable offsets actually exist before money is accepted. The fund should have to advise the minister whether it can realistically deliver an offset. There should also be an excluded matters list, because you can't destroy the last of something and call it an offset. Thirdly, we need to price offsets accurately, and that's dealt with in another bill. Fourthly, there must be transparency around success and failure of projects, which we've already discussed. There also needs to be scientific oversight so that the advisory committee includes scientists who understand biodiversity, not just balance sheets.

This reform package could really deliver what Australians have demanded, but that promise depends on integrity—integrity in how powers are used, how offsets are priced and how results are reported. The national interest shouldn't be a loophole, and offsets shouldn't be a licence to destroy. We must build a system that restores rather than excuses, that protects nature and that delivers real outcomes to the Australian people. I commend the amendments to the House.

The government will not be supporting these amendments. To provide some of the reasons, I'll provide information that's been provided by the Minister for the Environment and Water on each of the two issues raised in turn. First of all, the proposed national interest approval provision in the bill is directly responsive to a recommendation from the Samuel review. It's a provision that is to be rarely used and has significant guardrails, including a statement of reasons, where there is an overwhelming national interest outcome at stake. The national interest approval will not switch off the new environmental protections in their entirety. The approval must still be consistent with our international obligations, including for World Heritage and Ramsar wetlands. The minister must also make sure that the tests are met as far as is possible without preventing the national interest outcome. This means that projects that fall short of the new tests can only be approved where it is truly crucial to do so. Proponents will not get a free pass just because their action is in the national interest.

In terms of the amendments that relate to the independent Restoration Contributions Holder, the government's environmental reforms will deliver better outcomes for the environment and the industry. The bill's reforms will introduce new options for offsetting. Project proponents can either deliver an offset themselves or pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or a combination of both. The new independent Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental offsets, including through pooling funds for similar projects. We do not support these amendments because new rulings powers under the act fulfil the role of enabling the minister to determine that restoration contributions in all or particular circumstances are not appropriate as compensation for a particular protected matter. This mechanism provides for flexibility and responsiveness by the minister as new information becomes available, including any advice of the Restoration Contributions Holder.

The proposed amendments would also remove flexibility and limit the environmental benefits of larger strategic restoration actions—for example, increasing connectivity or creating wildlife corridors. This approach is better for the environment and better for business. We know that the current offsets regime isn't currently working for industry or for the environment. We need to be able to do something differently to improve the system and deliver restoration at scale. The bill strikes a balance in allowing that to happen while learning the lessons from other offsets approaches that haven't worked.

The question is that amendments (1) to (10) and (12) to (15), moved by the honourable member for Curtin, be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 73 (after line 16), after item 178, insert:

178A After subsection 78(3A)

Insert:

(3B) However, subsection (3A) does not apply if the action is likely to cause or significantly contribute to the extinction of any native species or cause any other unacceptable impact as defined in section 527F.

(2) Schedule 1, item 181, page 73 (line 21) to page 75 (line 15), omit the item.

When the Leader of the House stood up to introduce the Environment Protection Reform Bill, in an astonishing misstep he forgot to say one crucial word in the bill's title—'protection'. That might have been a slip of the tongue but many have since been left wondering if the government has left protection out of the bill as well. Indeed, it's been well ventilated by now that these reforms fall well short of what's needed to stop and reverse biodiversity loss and to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. It's riddled with all sorts of carve-outs and loopholes which would allow for continued environmental destruction in the face of all the evidence.

Speaker, you'll excuse me, being from Tasmania, for reminding the House of the mother and father of all carve-outs: the exemption of the regional forestry agreements and the changes which the government rammed through the last parliament on budget day this year to exempt the salmon industry from ongoing scrutiny. Some perhaps remember specifically the former environment minister being ruthlessly undermined by the Prime Minister and forced to come in here and herald the government's choice to remove her ability to reconsider certain past environmental decisions, all because the Prime Minister promised the salmon companies they could continue to wreak environmental havoc in Macquarie Harbour and continue driving the Maugean skate to extinction. In these bills, the new environment minister is undermining these reconsideration revisions even more, and that's of particular concern, s another feature of these bills that concerns me is the devolution of approvals to states and territories who, let's face it, have an even worse track record on environmental approvals than the feds.

To remedy that, my amendments insert a new section to clarify that a minister can reconsider past decisions if the action concerned is likely to contribute to the extinction of a native species or has another unacceptable impact as defined in the new section 527F. My amendments also delete clause 181, which introduces a new limit on the timeframe for third parties to apply for reconsideration to just 28 days and sets other new and ridiculously high thresholds which must be met when any third party wants to request a decision to be reconsidered. Let's not mince our words. As drafted, the process is so onerous and limiting that it's intended to all but end the ability of members of the community to request that past decisions be reviewed. That's bad process, bad for transparency and bad for the environment. The fact is that the reconsideration process is an important safeguard intended to ensure environmental decision-makers can correct mistakes and be flexible and responsive to a changing environment and evolving science.

I want to bring attention back to the Maugean skate because it really is emblematic of what's wrong with our environment laws currently and what the government plans to bake in with these reforms. There, in Macquarie Harbour, we have an endangered, prehistoric fish which has outlasted the dinosaurs and exists in that one location only. We've also got clear scientific evidence of its decline, coinciding with expanded salmon farming following a federal approval created in 2012. Moreover, we have updated and authoritative conservation advice from the experts at the environment department saying the primary driver of the skate's decline is low dissolved oxygen and that the main, anthropogenic cause of that oxygen debt is the salmon farm.

Surely, acting in the environmental and public interest and on the precautionary principle, any environmental regulator worth their salt would account for this new evidence and rein in the industry to prevent an extinction. But what has been done instead? The previous environment minister sat on a reconsideration request without a decision for almost two years before the government then removed the power to reconsider that decision altogether. Now the government comes back to take another bite of the cherry with these reconsideration changes because, clearly, other industries got jealous of the salmon industry and wanted unfettered, forever approvals themselves. In other words, freed of the responsibility to consider changing circumstances and empowered to improve whatever they like under the guise of the national interest, Australia's environment ministers will now preside over the next mass extinction event. The community won't stand for that, so I won't support these bills without significant changes, and I urge the parliament to support my amendments and to come together to pass other sensible changes to fix these broken bills.

I thank the member for the issues that he's raised. The government will not be supporting the amendments that have just been moved. I've been provided with information on the amendments. In the first instance, one of them does not specifically relate to the current bills before the House but relates to amendments that were previously considered and passed by the parliament earlier this year, as was partly referred to in the contribution just made. The view of the government is that the amendment would create uncertainty and increase legislative complexity through introducing untested terms in the legislation that haven't previously been considered—for example, native species without reference to whether or not they are matters of national environmental significance.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

I ask leave of the House to move amendments (1) to (20) on sheet 1, amendments (1) and (5) on sheet 2 and amendments (2) to (4) and (6) to (13) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together

Is leave granted?

Leave is granted, and I thank the member for moving them en bloc.

I move the amendments:

SHEET 1

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

(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 8), before item 2, insert:

1A Section 11

Omit "it is taken in accordance with Regional Forest Agreements or".

(3) Schedule 1, item 85, page 16 (after line 3), after subsection 33(1), insert:

(1A) However, the Minister must not make a declaration under subsection (1) in relation to forestry operations.

(4) Schedule 1, item 115, page 38 (line 28), at the end of section 37, add:

; and (f) the action is not a forestry operation.

(5) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 28), after item 115, insert:

115A Divisions 4 and 6 of Part 4

Repeal the Divisions.

(6) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (after line 11), after subsection 46(1), insert:

(1A) However, a bilateral agreement must not make a declaration under subsection (1) in relation to forestry operations.

(7) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (after line 17), after subsection 46(2), insert:

(2A) However, the Minister must not accredit a management or authorisation framework in relation to forestry operations.

(8) Schedule 1, page 64 (after line 20), after item 157, insert:

157A After subsection 68(1)

Insert:

Note: See also section 68B if the proposal involves clearing native vegetation.

(9) Schedule 1, page 64 (after line 23), after item 158, insert:

158A Subsection 68A(5)

After "subsection 68(1) or (2)", insert ", or subsection 68B(2),".

158B After section 68A

Insert:

68B Clearing native vegetation in certain areas requires referral

(1) This section applies to a proposal to take any of the following actions:

(a) an action that includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that total 20 hectares or more;

(b) an action that, together with one or more other actions, includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that:

(i) total 20 hectares or more; and

(ii) are on the same property;

(c) an action, that together with one or more other actions over a period of up to 2 years, includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that:

(i) total 20 hectares or more; and

(ii) are on the same property or on adjoining properties.

Note 1: For the meaning of action, see section 523.

Note 2: For paragraphs (b) and (c), the actions need not all be carried out by the same person.

(2) A person proposing to take the action for an area of native vegetation must refer the proposal to the Minister for the Minister's decision under subsection 75(1), whether or not the action is a controlled action, if:

(a) a listed threatened species is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(b) a listed threatened species' habitat is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(c) a listed migratory species is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(d) a listed migratory species' habitat is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(e) a listed threatened ecological community is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(f) the area is wholly or partly within a Great Barrier Reef catchment area.

The referral must comply with subsection (3).

Civil penalty:

(a) for an individual-1,000 penalty units; or

(b) for a body corporate-10,000 penalty units.

(3) The referral complies with this subsection if the referral specifies each provision of Part 3 that the person reasonably considers is, or may be, a controlling provision for the action.

Note: A controlling provision for the action may be:

(a) if paragraph (2)(a), (b) or (e) applies for the action-section 18 or 18A; or

(b) if paragraph (2)(c) or (d) applies for the action-section 20 or 20A; or

(c) if paragraph (2)(f) applies for the action-section 24B or 24C.

(4) Nothing in this section limits the operation of any other provision of this Act or prevents clearing of native vegetation from being a controlled action under any other provision of this Act.

Note: Clearing native vegetation may be a controlled action (see section 67) even if subsection (2) does not apply. Similarly, a proposal to clear native vegetation may need to be referred to the Minister (see section 68) even if subsection (2) does not apply.

(10) Schedule 1, page 70 (after line 25), after item 169, insert:

169A After subsection 75(2B)

Insert:

(2C) In deciding whether a proposed action that includes clearing of native vegetation is a controlled action, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action.

(11) Schedule 1, page 84 (after line 25), after item 193, insert:

193A After subsection 87(3)

Insert:

(3B) In deciding which assessment approach must be used for a proposed action that includes clearing of native vegetation, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action.

(12) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 20), after item 235, insert:

235A After paragraph 136(2)(fa)

Insert:

(fb) if the action includes clearing of native vegetation, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action; and

(13) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (line 9), omit "section 133.", substitute "section 133; and".

(14) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (after line 9), after paragraph 157A(1)(b), insert:

(c) the action is not a forestry operation.

(15) Schedule 1, item 292, page 142 (after line 18), after subsection 157H(2), insert:

(2A) However, the Minister must not grant an exemption in relation to forestry operations.

(16) Schedule 1, item 323, page 160 (after line 4), after subsection 177AA(3), insert:

(3A) A bioregional plan must not permit forestry operations.

(17) Schedule 1, item 604, page 361 (before line 10), before the definition of Commonwealth entity, insert:

clearing, of native vegetation, means one or more of the following:

(a) cutting down, felling, thinning, logging or removing native vegetation;

(b) killing, destroying, poisoning, ringbarking, uprooting or burning native vegetation;

(c) severing, topping or lopping branches, limbs, stems or trunks of native vegetation;

(d) substantially damaging or injuring native vegetation in any other way.

(18) Schedule 1, page 361 (after line 22), after item 605, insert:

605A Section 528 (definition of continuation )

Repeal the definition.

(19) Schedule 1, item 614, page 366 (after line 20), after the definition of national interest proposal in section 528, insert:

native vegetation means one or more native plants, including native plants that are:

(a) trees (including saplings, shrubs or scrubs); or

(b) understorey plants; or

(c) groundcovers; or

(d) found in a wetland; or

(e) lichens.

(20) Page 473 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Repeal of the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002

Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002

1 The whole of the Act

Repeal the Act.

SHEET 2

(1) Schedule 1, item 77, page 14 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item.

(2) Schedule 1, item 85, page 16 (line 13), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(3) Schedule 1, item 104, page 25 (lines 20 to 24), omit all the words from and including "(1) If" to and including "instrument", substitute:

(1) If, in relation to a declaration in force under section 33 a situation mentioned in subsection (2) exists or will arise, or any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection are met, the Minister must, by written instrument:

(4) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (line 22), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(5) Schedule 1, item 121, page 47 (line 1) to page 48 (line 3), omit section 48B.

(6) Schedule 1, item 237, page 99 (lines 5 and 6), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(7) Schedule 1, item 237, page 99 (lines 32 and 33), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(8) Schedule 1, item 237, page 100 (line 34) to page 101 (line 1), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(9) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (lines 16 to 21), omit subsection 514YD(2), substitute:

(2) A national environmental standard must:

(a) promote the objects of this Act; and

(b) not be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the international agreements specified in subsection 520(3).

(10) Schedule 1, item 571, page 317 (lines 1 to 10), omit subsections 514YF(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) The variation or revocation of a national environmental standard must:

(a) promote the objects of this Act; and

(b) not be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the international agreements specified in subsection 520(3).

(11) Schedule 1, item 571, page 317 (line 12) to page 318 (line 2), omit subsections 514YG(1) to (3), substitute:

(1) A variation or revocation of a national environmental standard:

(a) must not reduce protections of the environment; and

(b) must not reduce the likelihood that environmental data or information provided to the Minister, Secretary, Department or a Commonwealth agency under this Act or the regulations is appropriate, including as to quality, for the purposes for which it is provided; and

(c) must not reduce the likelihood that appropriate consultation or engagement (including with Indigenous persons) will occur under the Act; and

(d) must not reduce the likelihood that outcomes or objectives specified in the standard will be achieved; and

(e) meet the prescribed requirements (if any).

(12) Schedule 1, item 571, page 319 (lines 26 and 27), omit "a decision prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection", substitute "a relevant decision".

(13) Schedule 1, item 571, page 320 (line 1), omit "may", substitute "must".

These amendments address multiple issues. Firstly, they remove the sections of the bill that hand federal responsibility to the states regarding fossil fuel developments that affect water resources. In October of 2023, together with Senator Hanson-Young in the Senate, I introduced a bill to expand the existing water trigger in the EPBC Act to include unconventional gas projects, and later that year the government finally responded, expanding the water trigger to cover unconventional gas projects through the Nature Repair Bill. That was a massive win for our nature, for wildlife and for future generations, but now we are being taken backwards. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 will give power back to the state and territory governments to make decisions about large coalmining and unconventional gas projects that affect groundwater reserves or waterways, rather than the federal government. Numerous experts and environmental organisations have warned that the states and territories are likely to favour developments which they profit from over the environment. Handing approval powers back to the state and territory governments, as this bill does, puts Australia's waterways, groundwater and agriculture at even greater risk from coal and gas fracking projects.

My amendments also address native forest logging and deforestation. First, they repeal the exemption for the regional forestry agreements in the EPBC Act; second, they repeal what is called the continuous use exemption; third, they insert a new provision that makes clear that, for any area over 20 hectares where threatened or migratory species may exist, actions must be referred for assessment under the national EPBC Act; and, fourth, they prohibit forestry operations from being allowed through bioregional plans and bilateral agreements and prohibit national interest exemptions from applying to forestry operations.

Australia is facing a deforestation crisis. We are the only developed nation on the global list of deforestation hotspots, and we hold the record for the highest number of mammal extinctions. It was very sad to hear that we have just clocked up our 39th extinction. Despite the minister saying that the regional forestry agreements will be subject to the new environmental standards, there is no mechanism in this bill to achieve that. These amendments are urgent, and they are possible. We cannot delay, and our wildlife cannot wait.

Finally, these amendments strengthen decision-making in the proposed reforms by shifting subjective provisions and language towards an objective decision-making framework. The Samuel review found that a fundamental shortcoming of the current EPBC Act is that it does not provide sufficient constraints on discretion, resulting in uncertainty and poor environmental outcomes. With key decisions and tests throughout the bill dependent on whether the minister is satisfied something is the case or whether an action is not inconsistent with something, this bill risks entrenching the very weaknesses of the current EPBC Act that have allowed Australia's environment to decline so sharply and seriously.

With 19 ecosystems on the brink of collapse and an extinction and deforestation crisis in this country right now, the subjective language that pervades this bill simply does not provide a guarantee that, in another 25 years, the situation for Australia's nature will not be even worse. We cannot allow this to happen when we know full well the power and influence that industry lobbying can exert. We simply cannot leave it to an unknown future individual's discretion, the minister of the day's, to ensure our incredible nature is protected. I commend all these amendments to the House.

The government won't be supporting the amendments, and I'll go through, in turn, the different issues and the information that I've been provided with.

Firstly, with respect to forestry, our intention, as the Minister for the Environment and Water has stated, is that we will apply the national environmental standards to regional forestry agreements under which native forestry occurs. Work on how to implement that commitment is ongoing. With respect to land clearing prior-use and continuous-use exemption, we have contained our amendments primarily to those recommended by the Samuel review. I know there are many people and organisations who are very passionate about this matter, but that is not something we are contemplating in the bill.

With respect to the second sheet of amendments—first of all, amendments (1) and (5)—we are not supporting these amendments. In crafting the reforms, we've looked to three key pillars, all aligned with the Samuel review. One of these pillars is more efficient and robust decision-making, and one of the core recommendations of the Samuel review was to reduce duplication between state and territory and Commonwealth processes. This is an amendment that would maintain duplicative processes. Any bilateral agreements or accredited processes will have to meet our strong national environmental standards.

With respect to the remaining amendments on the second sheet, which go to national environmental standards, the government is not supporting those either. The minister of the day will have the capacity to make standards but will only have the capacity to make standards if this bill is passed. Reforms will allow the environment minister to make national environmental standards. The standards will set clear and enforceable expectations for regulated activities under the EPBC Act. If a proposal is inconsistent with these standards, it won't be approved. This will deliver improved environmental outcomes, provide certainty and guidance for business, and uplift the quality and consistency of decision-making.

Standards will protect the environment. Standards will give businesses clear rules. Standards will help decision-makers be fair and consistent. The individual standards will be made as legislative instruments following the passage of this package of bills, which will create the new standards-making power. The government has made clear that its priority standards are matters of national environmental significance, offsets, First Nations engagement, and data and information. A prescribed consultation process will need to be followed before making a standard, and these are disallowable instruments.

The question is that amendments (1) to (20) on sheet 1 and (1) to (13) on sheet 2, moved by the member for Mackellar, be agreed to.

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 18), after item 60, insert:

60A After Subdivision FB of Division 1 of Part 3 of Chapter 2

Insert:

Subdivision FC — Clean air and water

24F Requirement for approval of activities that may affect air and water quality

(1) A constitutional corporation, or a Commonwealth agency that does not enjoy the immunities of the Commonwealth, commits an offence if the corporation or agency takes an action that:

(a) may produce an actual or potential adverse effect which may occur from air or water pollution, or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air; or

(b) may affect the air and water quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national waterways and marine parks and areas impacting other matters of national environmental significance.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.

Note 1: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495.

Note 2: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person takes an action that:

(i) may produce an actual or potential adverse effect which may occur from air or water pollution, or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air; or

(ii) may affect the air and water quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national waterways and marine parks and areas impacting other matters of national environmental significance; and

(b) the action is taken for the purposes of trade or commerce:

(i) between Australia and another country; or

(ii) between 2 States; or

(iii) between a State and Territory; or

(iv) between 2 Territories.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.

Note 1: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495.

Note 2: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person takes an action that:

(i) may produce an actual or potential adverse effect which may occur from air or water pollution, or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air; or

(ii) may affect the air and water quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national waterways and marine parks and areas impacting other matters of national environmental significance; and

(b) the action is taken in:

(i) a Commonwealth area; or

(ii) a Territory.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.

Note 1: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495.

Note 2: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C.

(4) Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply to an action if:

(a) an approval of the taking of the action by the constitutional corporation, Commonwealth agency or person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

(b) there is in force a determination under section 79E that the action may continue to be taken and the action is taken in accordance with the conditions (if any) specified in the determination; or

(c) Part 4 lets the constitutional corporation, Commonwealth agency or person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

(d) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or

(e) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process).

Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

24F Requirement for informed public participation

The Minister must be satisfied that that any decision to permit increased air or water pollution in any area to which this Act applies is made only after careful evaluation of all the consequences of such a decision and after adequate procedural opportunities for informed public participation in the decision making process.

To ensure environmental protections and to underpin conservation, our ecology has to be protected as a whole. That's why I'm introducing an amendment to this bill to include clean air and water as matters of national environmental significance. Clean air and water are foundational to the health of our ecosystems, to human populations and to our planet at large. As the global community grapples with the escalating challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and public health crises, the protection of these vital resources has become more urgent than ever.

Safeguarding air and water quality is not just an environmental necessity; it's also a prerequisite for sustainable development and for human wellbeing. Air and water are integral components of the planet's life support systems. Clean air regulates climate, supports plant photosynthesis and maintains atmospheric balance. Similarly, clean water sustains aquatic ecosystems. It supports biodiversity, and it's essential for agriculture and for human consumption. Degradation of these resources through pollution disrupts ecological balance and leads to cascading effects across our ecosystems.

Air pollution, primarily from fossil fuel combustion, releases harmful substances, like particulate matter, nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide, which contribute to acid rain, smog formation and global warming. Water pollution introduces toxic substances into our rivers, wetlands, lakes and oceans. It affects aquatic life, causes algal blooms and harms biodiversity. Biodiversity underpins the resilience of ecosystems by supporting essential systems like pollination, nutrient cycling and climate regulation. Air and water pollution are among the leading drivers of biodiversity loss. According to the European Environment Agency, 73 per cent of ecosystems in the EU exceeded critical loads for nitrogen deposition in 2022. That threatens species diversity and ecosystem stability. Pollution induced by diversity loss is particularly severe in freshwater ecosystems, where reduced pH levels and chemical contamination, including with PFAS, disproportionally affect aquatic species. Airborne pollutants also damage forest and soil microbiomes; they weaken the ecological networks that sustain terrestrial biodiversity.

The link between environmental quality and public health is well established. Exposure to polluted air causes respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Contaminated water contributes to gastrointestinal infections, to neurological disorders and to developmental issues in children. The WHO estimated that, globally, air pollution causes seven million deaths every year. Last year, outdoor air pollution was estimated to be linked to almost 4,000 premature deaths in Australia alone.

Effective environmental governance is absolutely essential to protect air and water quality. Instruments such as the US Clean Air Act and the US Clean Water Act have already demonstrated the potential for regulatory frameworks to reduce pollution and to restore ecosystems.

As it is, this bill offers inadequate protection for the water trigger that we've already legislated in this House. Under the current laws, it is specifically excluded from bilateral approval agreements and from regional plans; under this bill, it is subject to devolution. We don't yet have the promised national environmental standards for matters of national environmental significance, but these could, in any case, be bypassed by ministerial rulings or by the national interest loophole. And this bill's definition of unacceptable impact is so loaded with qualifiers and sets a threshold so high that it will not capture habitat essential to the survival of even the most critically endangered species, nor will it prevent the contamination of groundwater aquifers.

So I propose this amendment, which seeks to raise clean air and water to the same level of national environmental significance as our most important environmental values. Australia's air and water would be protected from actions that would significantly impact their quality, and there would be civil penalties and offences in place to enforce those protections. I commend the amendment to the House.

I thank the member for the contribution and for raising the significant issue in the House. The government won't be supporting the amendment, and I'll explain why. There's a longstanding practice that the Commonwealth regulates for matters of environmental significance—and they are also based on specific heads of constitutional power—and state and territory governments regulate for matters that have been identified in the amendment that's before the House right now. We're trying to reduce duplication through this legislation, and the states and territories have a long history now of having mature laws on this issue and regulators to manage these.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), before item 2, insert:

1A After section 3A

Insert:

3B Climate principles

Decisions under this Act must have regard to:

(a) the protection of the environment from climate change, including the impacts of climate change on matters of national environmental significance; and

(b) the impact of global greenhouse gas emissions on matters of national environmental significance and the environment, and the need to reduce those emissions to ensure that those matters and the environment are protected; and

(c) the need to promote and support adaptation and resilience in the face of climate change; and

(d) the contribution of biodiversity and functioning ecosystems to climate change mitigation and adaptation; and

(e) Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; and

(f) Australia's international climate change obligations including under the Paris Agreement; and

(g) any other climate related matter set out in a regulation or a standard.

(2) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 11), after item 234, insert:

234A At the end of subsection 136(1)

Add:

; (c) climate change matters.

To explain my amendments to these bills, the bills comprising the first overhaul to our nature laws in a quarter of a century, it's useful to go back to first principles. Why do we have nature laws? What's the purpose of them? I think, if you ask the average person on the street those questions, they would answer, 'Surely, the primary purpose of nature protection laws is to protect nature.' That's a proposition that's really hard to argue with. The next question is: if the purpose of nature laws is to protect nature, what does nature need protecting from? There are many threats to nature, but the key ones that have fuelled the species extinction crisis of the past 25 years are habitat destruction, invasive species and climate change. In their current form, the government's EPBC reforms do very little, if anything, to address these things.

In relation to habitat destruction, the current law and the so-called reform bills contain exemptions for land clearing and for logging of native forests. This is just nonsensical, as is the fact that this bill also does very little, if anything, to address climate change impacts. Climate change is among the greatest threats to biodiversity now, with compounding impacts predicted for the future. The federal environment minister is currently not legally bound to consider or authorise to refuse project proposals based on their alignment with Australia's nationally determined contributions made under international treaties, such as the Paris Agreement. This is administratively nonsensical, commercially nonsensical and, frankly, environmentally nonsensical. How is it possible that in 2025 stronger nature laws are drafted without any consideration for two of the most significant threats to nature this decade and for future decades? That's why my amendments are being tabled. This is where they come in.

My first amendment takes us back to first principles, which is where we started. It amends the objects of the act, which broadly set out the purpose of the act. The amendment inserts a set of climate principles to be taken into account when decisions are made under the act. They include protecting the environment from climate change, the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and the need to reduce emissions, and Australia's international climate change obligations. To repeat, this is because climate change is one of the greatest threats to nature. We need to consider all laws that can mitigate the climate crisis, and we are committed to an international rules based order. That's why I think nature laws should seek to protect nature from climate change and recognise the contribution of a healthy environment towards mitigating against the physical impacts of a changing climate on all Australian communities. My second amendment deals with the same issue in the substance of the bill. It adds climate change matters to the list of issues that must be taken into account when decisions are made to approve projects.

These amendments are the absolute bare minimum that this bill should do to address the consequential impacts of climate change on nature. The approach I've taken with my amendments differs from the concept of a climate trigger, which has been so widely discussed in connection with this reform. That's because the government has been very clear, despite how beneficial it would be for nature, that it has no appetite for the introduction of a climate trigger, asserting that greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities are adequately addressed under the safeguard mechanism. Just for the Hansard, let it be known the member for Bradfield is currently raising one eyebrow. Instead, my proposal adopts a mainstreaming approach to making the current act responsive to climate change, setting out generally applicable principles which apply across all provisions. The broad application of my amendments will ensure that climate change is considered in all relevant decisions under the act—for example, in deciding whether a threatened species should have a recovery plan or in developing a regional plan.

I do not expect the government will support my amendments, but I could not in good conscience be involved in this debate in this place about nature and not raise climate change as something from which nature needs protecting. This is the reason that I commend these amendments to the House.

I thank the member for Bradfield for the issues that have been raised. There are actually three amendments coming where the response from the government is the same, because they all deal with the same issue of incorporating climate change powers into environmental approvals, so the answer I give now is relevant to the amendment being moved now by the member for Bradfield, and to amendments that I'm anticipating are going to be moved by the members for Wentworth and for Warringah.

We're not supporting these amendments. As the minister for the environment has previously said, there will be no climate trigger in the legislation. The safeguard mechanism is Australia's main law for reducing emissions and meeting climate goals. That's a decision that we've taken as a government. Under the Climate Change Act 2022, the minister is required to give certain emissions estimates that they have received to the minister for climate change, as well as the Climate Change Authority and the secretary of the climate change department.

The proposed reforms aim to support the safeguard mechanism by requiring developers to estimate and publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions for scopes 1 and 2 and to include plans to reduce and manage those emissions. This information will be required for project assessments, strategic planning, regional approvals and bilateral agreements. These changes will improve transparency and accountability for new developments and support the effective operation of the safeguard mechanism, and are in line with the recommendations of the Samuel review. This is an important step forward to provide the community with confidence that proponents are taking their greenhouse gas emissions seriously and that they have a plan to reduce those emissions in line with Australia's net zero targets.

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Bradfield be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1 and amendment (1) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together:

SHEET 1

(1) Schedule 1, page 94 (after line 6), after item 218, insert:

218A After section 131AB

Insert:

131AC Minister must obtain advice from Climate Change Authority in relation to designated large facilities or potential designated large facilities

(1) This section applies if an action is likely to result in:

(a) an increase, in the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or future financial years, of scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is taken; or

(b) a new designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or a future financial year.

(2) Before the Minister decides whether or not to approve, for the purposes of a controlling provision, the taking of the action, and what conditions (if any) to attach to an approval, the Minister must obtain advice from the Climate Change Authority in relation to:

(a) the accuracy of emissions estimates provided by the person proposing to take the action, including the consistency of the methods for making those estimates with methods prescribed by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007; and

(b) the impact that the action would have on safeguard emissions for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken and future financial years; and

(c) the impact that the action would have on the safeguard outcomes; and

(d) whether the action would place a safeguard outcome at risk; and

(e) what conditions (if any) it would be appropriate to attach to an approval if the Minister were to approve the action; and

(f) how the person proposing to take the action plans to mitigate emissions caused by the action, including:

(i) committed, time-bound measures to mitigate gross emissions; and

(ii) reliance on expected or potential future measures and technologies; and

(iii) feasibility of proposed strategies.

(3) In this section, the following expressions have the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007:

(a) designated large facility;

(b) safeguard emissions;

(c) safeguard outcome;

(d) scope 1 emission.

(2) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 20), after item 235, insert:

235A After paragraph 136(2)(fa)

Insert:

(fb) any relevant advice obtained by the Minister from the Climate Change Authority in accordance with section 136AC; and

(3) Schedule 1, page 156 (after line 3), after item 317, insert:

317A At the end of Division 7 of Part 11

Add:

170CB Publication of reasons

Despite any other provision of this Act, if the Minister makes a decision under this Part the Minister must publish the reasons for the decision on the Department's website.

_____

SHEET 2

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A notifiable instrument made under subsection (2) must be consistent with the principle that the amendments made by this Act in relation to assessment pathways should take effect gradually over the 3 year period beginning on the day fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of item 2 of the table.

As I outlined in my second reading speech, reform of our Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act is long overdue—for our environment, for our economy and for our country. However, serious loopholes remain. The bill leaves too much ministerial discretion over what constitutes the 'national interest', retains exemptions for native forest logging and land clearing, and risks entrenching a pay-to-destroy model through the new restoration fund and overuse of biodiversity offsets. These weaknesses threaten to undermine the very purpose of the reform and the protection of Australia's biodiversity.

I'm rising to speak on amendments that will strengthen this bill, both for nature and for business. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Australia's biodiversity and ecosystems—from rising ocean temperatures to floods, fires and droughts. While proponents must disclose their emissions and mitigation plans, these are neither required to be considered by the minister or the EPA nor required to be independently verified. The government argues that this is unnecessary because emissions are managed under the safeguard mechanism. But they are not managed effectively. The environment minister is only required to notify the climate change minister and authority after a project is approved. The safeguard is not effective enough to carry that burden. Without an upfront assessment, new projects can add pressure to the mechanism, forcing others to cut more deeply or rely on offsets that may never materialise.

I want to see a clear link between the safeguard mechanism and the EPBC process. My amendment will require the Climate Change Authority to assess any action that would allow a new facility to the safeguard mechanism or increase emissions from the existing one; independently verify proponents' emissions estimates; consider the likely impact on the safeguard's overall emissions trajectory and objectives; advise whether the action risks undermining those objectives and recommend appropriate conditions, such as declining annual emission caps; and provide that advice to both the climate change and environment ministers.

While this advice would not be binding, it would ensure that emissions data and abatement plans are used meaningfully in assessments, not left to another minister after approval. Approving major emitters first and hoping another minister cleans it up later is poor governance. The amendment would enable upfront consideration of climate impacts and prevent avoidable harm. It would also provide the government with useful data to inform future safeguard policy and to set conditions needed to mitigate a project's impact on the mechanism.

My second amendment concerns transparency. It would require the minister to publish a statement of reasons for all decisions, particularly approvals or rejections under the EPBC Act. At present, both the minister and NEPA must publish notice of a decision but not the reasoning behind it. While the current minister generally does so voluntarily, this requirement should be embedded in law for all future ministers. Publishing reasons is vital for accountability, public trust and better decision-making. It also helps business proponents better understand precedents and improve future proposals.

I have also moved a matching amendment to the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill to ensure NEPA operates with the same level of transparency.

I had a constructive conversation with the minister's office in relation to these amendments, but particularly this one. It is my hope that, while the minister, at this stage, has indicated that they will not be supporting this amendment, it will still be considered as part of any future amendments that go through in the Senate.

Finally, I wanted to move an amendment in relation to some of the business groups I've consulted—and that is to sunset the removal of three project assessment and approval pathways over a three-year period. Part of the importance of this bill is to make sure that projects can move swiftly through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act's approval process if they are warranted to. I think the government has, appropriately, introduced a new streamlined process that should, hopefully, speed that up. I very much support that.

However, I am aware that, when government sets up new things, it takes some time to bed them down. Things don't always go faster in a new process; they sometimes can go slower. What I'm urging the government to do in this case is provide a sensible transition period so that, perhaps, those businesses that are familiar with the current available pathways are able to use them until the new pathways are established, precedence is set and people are able to understand what is actually going on. I think this could not only achieve what the government wants to do—which is move to a streamlined mode overall—but also make sure that we do get faster approvals, when things deserve to be approved, straight off the bat and there isn't some unnecessary delay, which everybody, I think, is genuinely seeking to avoid. I do believe it balances the need for reform with the need for certainty and fairness during implementation. Again, I've spoken to the minister's office about this, but I recognise that this was circulated relatively recently, so I would urge the minister and others to consider that in the Senate.

The government is not agreeing to the amendments, in terms of the amendment related to climate change, for the same reasons as I gave earlier in response to an amendment from the member for Bradfield.

With respect to on sheet 2, it seeks to further amend the commencement provisions to require the commencement arrangements to meet specific requirements. The requirement would be that they are 'consistent with the principle that the amendments related to assessment pathways should take effect gradually over three years'. In the government's view, it is legally uncertain what 'take effect gradually' would mean, and adding this criteria to instrument would potentially open a judicial review, which could frustrate the commencement of the bills.

That said, I respect the points that the member has put in making sure that the transition is done in a constructive way. The existing transitional rule-making power does provide the necessary flexibility for the government to work with stakeholders, as the member has suggested, and to apply a sensible transition period that provides certainty on when the new rules apply and ensure the benefits of the reforms for the environment and business are available in a timely manner.

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.

by leave, I move amendments (1) to (19), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 168, page 69 (line 12) to page 70 (line 22), omit the item.

(2) Schedule 1, item 194, page 85 (line 10), at the end of subsection 87(5), add:

; and (c) the national environmental standards dealing with community engagement and consultation, First Nations Peoples and community consultation and environmental impact assessment have been complied with as relevant.

(3) Schedule 1, item 320, page 158 (lines 17 and 18), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(4) Schedule 1, item 323, page 161 (line 18), at the end of subsection 177AD(2), add:

; (g) high value agricultural land;

(h) drinking water catchment areas.

(5) Schedule 1, item 323, page 165 (after line 22), after paragraph 177AL(1)(a), insert:

(aa) a copy of the bioregional plan strategic assessment report prepared in accordance with subsection (1A); and

(6) Schedule 1, item 323, page 165 (line 25), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(7) Schedule 1, item 323, page 165 (after line 25), after subsection 177AL(1), insert:

(1A) Before the Minister publishes a draft bioregional plan under subsection (1), the Minister must prepare a bioregional plan strategic assessment report that identifies the conservation and recovery priorities for the bioregion and considers the cumulative impacts of any proposed activities under the bioregional plan, and meets the requirements prescribed in the regulations.

(8) Schedule 1, item 323, page 169 (line 8), at the end of section 177AP, add:

; (g) that the bioregional plan does not compromise high value agricultural land or drinking water catchments.

(9) Schedule 1, item 323, page 175 (lines 7 and 8), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(10) Schedule 1, item 323, page 182 (line 24), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(11) Schedule 1, item 323, page 182 (line 31), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(12) Schedule 1, item 323, page 187 (line 5), omit "regulations." substitute "regulations; and".

(13) Schedule 1, item 323, page 187 (after line 5), after paragraph 177BN(2)(d), insert:

(e) be accompanied by evidence of compliance with the national environmental standards dealing with community engagement and consultation, First Nations Peoples and community consultation and environmental impact assessment.

(14) Schedule 1, item 323, page 195 (line 16), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(15) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (line 14), omit "may", substitute "must".

(16) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (after line 15), after subsection 514YD(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the national environmental standards must deal with the following:

(a) community engagement and consultation;

(b) First Nations Peoples and community consultation;

(c) environmental impact assessment;

(d) other standards the minister determines.

(17) Schedule 1, item 571, page 316 (after line 15), at the end of section 514YD, add:

(7) The national environmental standard dealing with community engagement and consultation must set out engagement and consultation processes required to be undertaken for:

(a) a referral seeking streamlined assessment under Division 5A of Part 8; and

(b) a request to be made to take a priority action in a development zone specified in a bioregional plan under section177BN.

(18) Schedule 1, page 342 (after line 27), after item 587, insert:

587A At the end of Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 23

Add:

525A High value agricultural land and drinking water catchments

In this Act:

drinking water catchment has the meaning prescribed by the regulations.

high value agricultural land has the meaning prescribed by the regulations.

(19) Schedule 1, item 678, page 385 (lines 5 to 10), omit the item.

My amendments seek to do three main things: (1) embed best-practice community engagement and consultation through the EPBC Act, (2) protect high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments within bioregional plans, and (3) stop minor or preparatory works from starting on projects still pending assessment as a controlled action. Graeme Samuel's 2020 review rightly identified the need to improve community participation in decision-making processes. My amendments will require the minister to create national environmental standards for community engagement and consultation and First Nations participation and engagement, and to create an environmental impact assessment.

Firstly, the community engagement and consultation standard will need to set out a process for engagement and consultation for referrals seeking streamlined assessments and priority actions in development zones. Furthermore, priority action projects seeking approval within a development zone will be required to provide evidence of their compliance with this standard. Quick approvals under streamlined assessment processes and as priority actions should not brush over community engagements. My amendments give a clear signal to developers that community engagement is important and necessary to receive project approval. I know there is an industry appetite for this. Ultimately, it encourages project developers to do better and get a result faster. It also lays out a procedure to give guidance to developers and communities on what to expect in the community engagement process.

As these bills currently stand, the timeframe for allowing community consultation on draft or changed bioregional plans is neither sufficient nor fair for communities to give considered feedback. My amendments will increase the timeframe allotted for community feedback from 30 days to 60 days. Community engagement and consultation offers additional knowledge and perspectives and improves the qualities of decisions made. This must be prioritised. These amendments are good for communities, good for proponents and good for the environment.

Secondly, my amendments aim to ensure that bioregional plans are truly strategic and effectively prioritise competing land use demands. They will require the minister to consider the conservation and recovery priorities as well as the cumulative impacts of any proposed activities when creating bioregional plans. Importantly, my amendments also require the minister to consider high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments, defining development zone boundaries within bioregional plans. Our land is a precious and limited resource, and we must be strategic in how we prioritise its use.

Finally, my amendments remove a loophole the government is seeking to add to the EPBC Act that would allow proponents awaiting assessment on a controlled action to start 'minor or preparatory' works before the minister's assessment. The only requirement for this work to commence is a note from the minister. There are huge swathes of ministerial discretion in this legislation. This additional discretionary power is not necessary and poses unjustified risks to the quality and integrity of environmental assessments.

My amendments will improve trust and integrity in the EPBC Act, which is important. They are made constructively and in good faith. I call on the government to support these amendments to help get our environmental reforms right. While I acknowledge that the government won't be accepting these amendments in this House today, I have had really good conversations with the minister, and I really value those. He has listened carefully. So, while I understand that the amendments won't be accepted at this point, I do urge the government to keep looking at this, thinking about it carefully and consulting on it. I hope I see some amendments of this nature happen throughout the Senate process.

I thank the member for Indi, both for the content of the issues she's raised and the manner of the casting forward of the continued conversations. I'll deal with the three issues in reverse order. We're not supporting the amendments, and I'll just go through the reasons.

First of all, with respect to minor or preparatory works, the change that we have in our legislation is a small but important change to address uncertainty about when certain parts of an action can commence. It enables proponents to undertake certain minor or preparatory parts of an action that are not likely to have a significant impact on protected matters, with the minister's agreement, while the larger action is being assessed. It allows for the making of regulations on the matters that the minister is to be satisfied of. Therefore, the constraints that are there in the legislation as presented do not guarantee an approval. That risk is borne by the proponent, and it's a practical measure to improve productivity.

With respect to high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments, I respect the issues that have been raised and acknowledge that, for the member for Indi as well, these are issues that would be regularly raised in her electorate. The EPBC Act specifically regulates significant impacts on the nine matters of national environmental significance. This amendment would overlap with matters that are appropriately for states and other legislation to regulate and matters that are regulated by the EPBC Act. It would introduce uncertainty and additional complexity into the system.

Insofar as the issues around public consultation are concerned—and I acknowledge that the member for Indi has also raised this issue personally with me and in question time as well as in the meetings she's had with the minister—the public consultation requirements are aligned with other consultation requirements under the act. It's important that communities have their say on projects, and it's sensible to have a consistent time frame across the act. In the context of making bioregional plans, the consultation time frame in the bill relates only to the statutory consultation step. Bioregional plans will also have significant prior community consultation through processes facilitated by state and territory governments as we work with them to develop their regional plans.

I know how important listening to the community is, and the minister has asked me to specifically repeat that he's very keen to keep engaging with the member for Indi on the development of a standard for community consultation. But those standards cannot exist unless the legislation itself finds its way through.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 191, page 82 (line 20) to page 83 (line 8), omit paragraphs 84A(2)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and

(b) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 191, page 83 (line 15), at the end of subsection 84A(2), add:

and; (e) the climate-related disclosures reported in accordance with Australian Standard AASB 52 Climate-Related Disclosures.

(3) Schedule 1, page 93 (after line 28), after item 215, insert:

215A At the end of section 130

Add:

Duty of care

(6) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations.

(4) Schedule 1, item 223, page 95 (after line 15), after subsection 133(7B), insert:

Duty of care

(7C) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations.

(5) Schedule 1, page 95 (after line 27), after item 224, insert:

224A After section 133

Insert:

133A Action must not hold an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk

(1) Despite any other provision of this Part, the CEO must not approve an action, if CEO is satisfied that:

(a) disclosures under section 84A(2)(e) would demonstrate an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk; and

(b) as a result, the action could materially impact matters of national environmental significance.

(2) The CEO must consider the greenhouse gas emissions information for the action for the purposes of subsection (1).

(6) Schedule 1, item 551, page 307 (after line 7), after section 474D, insert:

474DA Appeal against environment protection order

(1) A person against whom an environment protection order is made may appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction against the making of the order.

(2) The lodging of an appeal does not, except to the extent that the court otherwise directs in relation to the appeal, operate to stay action on the order appealed against.

(3) After hearing an appeal, the court may:

(a) confirm the order, or

(b) modify or rescind the order.

(4) In making a decision on an appeal, the court is to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the public interest.

(7) Schedule 1, item 588, page 343 (line 4), after "Part 3.", insert "In determining whether an impact is an unacceptable impact, the cumulative effect of multiple actions that are regulated under this Act must be taken into account.".

The amendments seek to integrate the existing climate-related financial disclosure into project assessment and approval processes. I should note these are disclosures that have been legislated by the government. So this is something they have supported and advocated for in other contexts.

Fundamentally, we cannot have an environmental legislation that is separated from climate impacts of proponents. Inherently the two are interconnected. The Albanese government's insistence on claiming that climate impacts are not relevant to protecting the environment and biodiversity in our environment—that they are with dealt elsewhere through other legislation—is simply wrong and highlights that it is not serious about protecting the environment and arresting biodiversity loss.

Nature does not experience climate and environment separately, neither should our laws. Every decision on our land, water and biodiversity is also a decision about the impact on our climate, which is then also an impact on our environment. Financial regulators APRA, RBA and the Climate Change Authority have all warned of climate risks to the economy, such as stranded assets and rising insurance costs, yet environmental assessments under this bill proposed by the Albanese government ignore these realities.

My amendments would require proponents to include climate-related financial disclosures in their applications, something that businesses are already familiar with; and require decision-makers to ensure projects do not pose unacceptable climate-related transition or financial risks—that is, become stranded assets. This is a financial viability consideration, not a climate consideration.

Amendments (3) and (4) would embed duty of care into our environmental protection legislation. It would introduce a legislative duty of care to protect children and future generations from the impacts of climate change. This follows the case of Sharma v Minister for the Environment, where the court initially found the minister owed such a duty, though it was overturned on appeal due to the legislation. This amendment fixes the problem.

The proposal responds to public support for the reform, including the duty of care bill which attracted over 400 supportive submissions. The amendment clarifies that, under the EPBC Act, the minister must act with reasonable care not to cause harm for future generations when approving projects. Enshrines the principles that today's decisions must not endanger tomorrow's citizens.

Amendment (7) would ensure that cumulative environmental impacts are properly assessed under the EPBC Act. It seeks to prevent the project fragmentation that we see too often, where large developments are split to avoid scrutiny and proper assessment of their true impact. The amendment would ensure an evaluation where the combined projects collectively cause unacceptable harm—that is, habitat loss, water degradation. The change reflects recommendations from the Samuel review, which found the EPBC Act's project by project approach insufficient.

By including the requirement in primary legislation, it ensures it cannot be delayed or weakened later. The amendment aims to halt the incremental degradation of ecosystems and enable informed, transparent and responsible decision-making.

Amendment (6) would introduce and establish a clear right of appeal for any person subject to an environmental protection order. This is important for business. The amendment adequately balances efficiency with accountability and procedural fairness so that businesses and proponents can gain certainty and a fair process if they need to challenge a stop work order.

In summary, these amendments aim to embed climate accountability into financial environmental approvals, to establish a duty of care towards future generations, to strengthen environmental governance by considering cumulative impacts and to provide a fair appeals process for environmental protection orders. Collectively, they promote a sustainable, transparent and responsible framework for decisions-making that aligns economic development with Australian environmental and climate goals.

It's disappointing to see how little participation in this process members of government have engaged with. To all MPs, especially members of LEAN who go to their communities with claims of being here for climate and protecting the environment: I urge you to consider the amendments that are being debated today. They are all seeking to improve legislation that is inadequate and will fail in its stated purpose to protect the environment. It is essential that, in this place, we have an informed debate and we test this legislation. It is disappointing that the government is choosing to ignore so many people trying to improve this legislation, but I hope that in the other place improvements will be made.

I thank the member for Warringah for the issues that have been raised. I will say this: never underestimate the commitment to the environment of the backbench members of the government. Everyone comes here from a good place, and the undermining that happened towards the end of that speech—as someone who sees how hard people on the backbench work through our committee process, the caucus process and the different processes we have, I wouldn't want to leave the comment that was made uncorrected.

With respect to the issues raised by the member for Warringah concerning climate, I refer to the answer I gave previously on the amendments that were moved by the member for Bradfield.

With respect to the issues on environmental protection orders, there are strong requirements that must be met before one of these orders can be issued. The CEO of the National Environmental Protection Agency must reasonably believe a person or body corporate has or is likely to breach legislation. The EPO can only be issued where there is an imminent risk of serious damage, it's necessary to ensure future compliance or it's necessary to manage any damage. The EPO must then be revoked if the CEO reasonably believes that it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was issued or if a specified timeframe in the EPO has lapsed. An EPO must state the purposes for which the order is issued, including by giving brief details of any alleged contravention or potential contravention to which the order relates and set out the requirements imposed by the person on the order, either specifying when the order ceases to be in force or including a statement to the effect of, 'The order will remain in force until it's revoked by the CEO.' If no timeframe is included in an EPO, the CEO must revoke an environment protection order if the CEO reasonably believes that the order is no longer necessary for any of the purposes for which it was issued.

On cumulative impact, these issues are to be dealt with through the standard on matters of national environmental significance and embed landscape-scale approaches.

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Warringah 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.

I feel utterly aggrieved by this government, who would not allow me to walk from over there to the box here to actually ask the minister questions. I've been waiting in this chamber for an hour and a half while the crossbench have been putting their questions, patiently.

Order! The member for Moncrieff will just pause. On a point of order, the Leader of the House.

On a point of order, question time will be in 45 minutes. Separate to the point of order, I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is the question be now put.

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

I move:

That standing order 43 be suspended for this sitting.

That's so that we can continue with the bills. We'd be skipping members' statements, to give a reminder of where we're up to with time.

I'll put the question.

Before we go to the next item, I just ask that all members be reminded that if any staff are in the advisers box, they are there as guests in the House and no-one from any advisers box should ever be trying to participate in the parliament and certainly should never be in a situation where they are interjecting on anyone, especially against the Speaker.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Just to clarify, as a point of order, I understand this is one of the bills that we've just had an entire cognate debate on, this whole week in the parliament. I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

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

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025:

(1) on Thursday, 6 November when the order of the day for the resumption of debate on each bill is called on:

(a) questions being put immediately on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill;

(b) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill occurring, with:

(i) no longer than five minutes of debate on each set of amendments moved, unless a Minister specifies an extended time for debate; and

(ii) the question that the bill [as amended] be agreed to being put immediately after all amendments have been resolved; and

(c) the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and

(2) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The question is that the bill be agreed to. The member for Moncrieff is seeking the call for a point of order?

I'm seeking the call to speak to the consideration in detail on the EPA bill.

The member for Mackellar has listed her consideration in detail amendments, and the process is that we go through the ones that are listed as consideration in detail. I understand that you don't have any amendments yourself; you wish to speak to consideration in detail, and we will get to that to make sure that you do. I just remind the House that the result of the suspension motion that we have done, which is on the Notice Paper, is that there will be five minutes allocated for this debate. The member for Mackellar has the call to move her amendments.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (34) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Clause 4, page 2 (line 20), after "Agency,", insert "establishes the Board of NEPA".

(3) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 21), after the paragraph beginning "This Act establishes", insert:

The Board's functions include appointing the CEO, determining policies and long-term strategic plans for the CEO, advising the CEO and assessing and reporting on the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions.

(4) Clause 4, page 3 (line 2), omit "the CEO and".

(5) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 3 to 5), omit "the CEO's independence by directing the CEO in the performance or exercise of the CEO's functions or powers", substitute "the Board's or the CEO's independence by directing them in the performance or exercise of their functions or powers".

(6) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 17), after the definition of advisory group, insert:

Board: see section 11A.

Board member means a member of the Board and includes the Chair and Deputy Chair.

(7) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 18), after the definition of CEO, insert:

Chair: see subsection 11D(5).

Deputy Chair: see subsection 11D(5).

(8) Clause 5, page 3 (before line 28), before paragraph (a) of the definition of entrusted person, insert:

(aa) a Board member; or

(9) Clause 5, page 4 (lines 3 to 6), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of entrusted person, substitute:

(d) a person engaged under section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by the Board under a written agreement to assist in, or advise in relation to, the performance of the Board's functions or the CEO's functions; or

(10) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 12), after the definition of environment, insert:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

Indigenous person means a person who is:

(a) a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia; or

(b) a descendant of an Indigenous inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands.

(11) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 3 to 7), omit the clause, substitute:

8 Simplified outline of this Part

This Part establishes the Board of NEPA and the office of the CEO of NEPA. It also establishes NEPA for the purposes of assisting the Board and the CEO in the performance of their functions. The Board is the accountable authority of NEPA.

(12) Clause 9, page 7 (line 8), omit "CEO", substitute "Board".

(13) Clause 9, page 7 (before line 10), before subparagraph (2)(c)(i), insert:

(ia) the Board members;

(14) Clause 9, page 7 (after line 15), after subparagraph (2)(d)(i), insert:

(ia) the functions of the Board referred to in section 11B; and

(15) Clause 10, page 7 (before line 19), before paragraph (a), insert:

(aa) the Board; and

(16) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 23 to 25), omit the clause, substitute:

11 Function of NEPA

The function of NEPA is to assist the Board and the CEO in the performance of their functions.

(17) Page 7 (after line 25), after Division 2, insert:

Division 2A — The Board

Subdivision A — Establishment and functions

11A Establishment

The NEPA Board is established by this section.

11B Functions of the Board

(1) The Board has the following functions:

(a) to appoint the CEO;

(b) to monitor, assess and report on the CEO's performance of the CEO's functions;

(c) to ensure that the CEO performs the CEO's functions consistently with the object of this Act;

(d) to determine the policies and long-term strategic plans of NEPA, and of the CEO in relation to the performance of the CEO's functions, including policies and plans relating to organisational governance and risk management;

(e) to determine what proportion of NEPA's budget should be spent on monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance;

(f) to advise the CEO on any matter relating to the protection of the environment or relating to the object of this Act (at the CEO's request or on the Board's own initiative).

(2) The Board must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, give the Minister a written report that:

(a) assesses the success of the CEO in performing the CEO's functions during the financial year in an accountable, efficient, outcomes-focused and transparent manner; and

(b) includes any recommendations made under or in relation to paragraphs (1)(b) to (e) or paragraph (a) of this subsection; and

(c) addresses any other matters prescribed by the rules.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of each report given under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives it.

(4) The Board has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.

Subdivision B — Membership and appointment

11C Membership of the Board

(1) The Board consists of the following members:

(a) the Chair;

(b) the Deputy Chair;

(c) not fewer than 5, and not more than 7, other members.

(2) The performance of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the Board is not affected by reason only of paragraph (1)(c) not being complied with for a period of not more than 6 months.

11D Appointment

(1) The Board members are to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument.

(2) A person must not be appointed as a Board member unless the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) the person has substantial experience or knowledge, and significant standing, in one or more of the following:

(i) environmental regulation;

(ii) conservation of biodiversity;

(iii) ecological sustainable development;

(iv) heritage;

(v) Indigenous affairs;

(vi) law;

(vii) natural resource management;

(viii) any other field prescribed by the rules; and

(b) the person does not have any interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the Board's functions; and

(c) at least 1 Board member is an Indigenous person.

(3) A person must not be appointed as a Board member under this section unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of the selection criteria for the position for at least 10 consecutive days; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(4) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as a Board member, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (3)(a)(iii)) to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

(5) The Minister must, by written instrument, appoint:

(a) one of the Board members to be the Chair; and

(b) another of the Board members to be the Deputy Chair.

(6) An appointment of the person as the Chair or Deputy Chair ceases if the person's appointment as a Board member ceases.

11E Term of appointment

(1) A Board member holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 6 years.

Note: A Board member may be reappointed: see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(2) However, the period of appointment for 4 of the first set of Board members must not exceed 3 years.

Note: This ensures staggered appointments.

(3) A Board member holds office on a part-time basis.

11F Acting appointments

Acting by operation of law

(1) The Deputy Chair is to act as the Chair:

(a) during a vacancy in the office of Chair (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or

(b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chair:

(i) is absent from duty; or

(ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

Acting appointments

(2) The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a Board member to act as the Deputy Chair:

(a) during a vacancy in the office of Deputy Chair (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or

(b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Deputy Chair:

(i) is acting as the Chair; or

(ii) is absent from duty; or

(iii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

(3) The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a person to act as a Board member (other than the Chair or the Deputy Chair):

(a) during a vacancy in the office of a Board member (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or

(b) during any period, or during all periods, when a Board member:

(i) is acting as the Deputy Chair; or

(ii) is absent from duty; or

(iii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

Qualifications etc. of acting Board members

(4) Subsections 11D(2) to (4) apply to an appointment under subsection (3) of this section in the same way as they apply to an appointment under section 11D.

Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see sections 33AB and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

11G Remuneration

(1) A Board member is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the rules.

(2) A Board member is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the rules.

(3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of a Board member.

Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of a Board member will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

(4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)).

11H Leave

(1) The Minister may grant the Chair leave of absence on the terms and conditions that the Minister determines.

(2) The Chair may grant leave of absence to any other Board member on the terms and conditions that the Chair determines.

(3) The Chair must notify the Minister if the Chair grants a Board member leave of absence for a period that exceeds 6 months.

11J Resignation

(1) A Board member may resign the member's appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation.

(2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.

11K Termination

(1) The Minister may terminate the appointment of a Board member:

(a) for misconduct; or

(b) if the member is unable to perform the duties of the member's office because of physical or mental incapacity.

(2) The Minister must terminate the appointment of a Board member if:

(a) the member:

(i) becomes bankrupt; or

(ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or

(iii) compounds with the member's creditors; or

(iv) makes an assignment of the member's remuneration for the benefit of the member's creditors; or

(b) the member is absent, except on leave of absence, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Board.

Note: The appointment of a Board member may also be terminated under section 30 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with terminating the appointment of an accountable authority, or a member of an accountable authority, for contravening general duties of officials).

11L Other terms and conditions

A Board member holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister.

Subdivision C — Procedures of the Board

11M Convening meetings

(1) The Board must hold such meetings as are necessary for the efficient performance of its functions.

(2) The Chair:

(a) may convene a meeting at any time; and

(b) must convene at least 4 meetings each calendar year; and

(c) must convene a meeting within 30 days after receiving a written request to do so from:

(i) a majority of the Board members; or

(ii) the Minister.

11N Quorum

(1) At a meeting of the Board, a quorum is constituted by a majority of the Board members.

(2) However, if:

(a) a Board member is required by rules made for the purposes of section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 not to be present during the deliberations, or to take part in any decision, of the Board with respect to a particular matter; and

(b) when the Board member leaves the meeting concerned there is no longer a quorum present;

the remaining Board members constitute a quorum for the purposes of any deliberation or decision at that meeting with respect to that matter.

11P Presiding at meetings

(1) The Chair must preside at all meetings of the Board at which the Chair is present.

(2) If the Chair is not present at a meeting of the Board, the Deputy Chair, if present, must preside at the meeting.

(3) If neither the Chair nor the Deputy Chair is present at a meeting of the Board, the other Board members present must appoint one of themselves to preside.

11Q Voting at meetings

(1) A question arising at a meeting of the Board is to be determined by a majority of the votes of the Board members present and voting.

(2) The person presiding at the meeting of the Board has a deliberative vote and, if the votes are equal, a casting vote.

11R Minutes

The Board must keep minutes of its meetings.

11S Conduct of meetings

The Board may, subject to this Subdivision, regulate proceedings at its meetings as it considers appropriate.

Note: Section 33B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contains further information about the ways in which Board members may participate in meetings.

11T Decisions without meetings

(1) The Board is taken to have made a decision at a meeting if:

(a) without meeting, a majority of the Board members entitled to vote on the proposed decision indicate agreement with the decision; and

(b) that agreement is indicated in accordance with the method determined by the Board under subsection (2); and

(c) all the Board members were informed of the proposed decision, or reasonable efforts were made to inform all the Board members of the proposed decision.

(2) Subsection (1) applies only if the Board:

(a) has determined that it may make decisions of that kind without meeting; and

(b) has determined the method by which Board members are to indicate agreement with proposed decisions.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Board member is not entitled to vote on a proposed decision if the member would not have been entitled to vote on that proposal if the matter had been considered at a meeting of the Board.

(4) The Board must keep a record of decisions made in accordance with this section.

(18) Clause 14, page 9 (line 22), at the end of the clause, add:

Note: The CEO's discretion is subject to the policies, plans, determinations, advice and recommendations of the Board: see section 11B.

(19) Clause 15, page 10 (line 5), omit "the CEO and".

(20) Clause 16, page 11 (lines 7 and 8), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) A statement of expectations cannot direct the Board or the CEO in the performance or exercise of their functions or powers.

(21) Clause 45, page 24 (lines 3 to 25), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute:

Appointment by the Board

(1) The CEO is to be appointed by the Board by written instrument.

Qualifications for appointment

(2) A person must not be appointed as the CEO unless the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the person has substantial experience or knowledge, and significant standing, in one or more of the following:

(i) environmental regulation;

(ii) conservation of biodiversity;

(iii) ecological sustainable development;

(iv) any other field prescribed by the rules; and

(b) the person does not have any interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the CEO's functions.

(2A) A person must not be appointed as the CEO under this section unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of the selection criteria for the position for at least 10 consecutive days; and

(ii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the Board to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(2B) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as the CEO, the Board must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (2A)(a)(iii)) to be published on NEPA's website.

(22) Clause 46, page 25 (line 4), omit "Minister", substitute "Board".

(23) Clause 47, page 25 (line 19), omit "Minister", substitute "Board".

(24) Clause 49, page 26 (line 5), omit "Minister", substitute "Board".

(25) Clause 50, page 26 (line 10), omit "Minister's", substitute "Board's".

(26) Clause 51, page 26 (line 13), omit "Governor-General", substitute "Board".

(27) Clause 51, page 26 (line 15), omit "Governor-General", substitute "Board".

(28) Clause 52, page 26 (line 18), omit "Governor-General", substitute "Board".

(29) Clause 52, page 27 (line 3), omit "Minister's", substitute "Board's".

(30) Page 32 (after line 24), after clause 59, insert:

59A Delegation by the Board

(1) The Board may, in writing, delegate any of the Board's functions or powers (other than a function or power in Part 5) to:

(a) a member of the staff referred to in section 53 or

(b) a person whose services are made available to NEPA under section 54; or

(c) an individual engaged, or an individual employed or engaged by a person engaged, under section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by the Board under a written agreement to assist in, or advise in relation to, the performance of the Board's functions.

Note: Sections 34AA to 34A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contain provisions relating to delegations.

(2) However, the Board must not delegate a function or power under subsection (1) to a person unless the person:

(a) is an SES employee or acting SES employee; or

(b) holds, or is acting in, a position that is equivalent to a position occupied by an SES employee; or

(c) holds, or is acting in, an Executive Level 1 or 2, or equivalent, position.

Note: The expressions SES employee and acting SES employee are defined in section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(3) In performing a delegated function or exercising a delegated power, the delegate must comply with any written directions of the Board.

(31) Clause 60, page 32 (line 26), omit "CEO", substitute "Board".

(32) Clause 61, page 33 (line 12), omit "the CEO and NEPA have", substitute "NEPA has".

(33) Clause 61, page 33 (line 29), after "given to", insert "the Board and".

(34) Clause 61, page 34 (line 5), before "the CEO", insert "the Board and".

If we are serious about reversing the destruction of our nature and providing certainty for business then we must ensure that the National Environment Protection Agency, NEPA, is trusted by business, the community and civil society. To achieve that, it must be a truly independent arbiter and built on a foundation of transparency. NEPA will not be truly independent if the CEO is appointed by the minister of the day and if there is no independently selected board.

Australians are watching the decline of our nature and wildlife with growing alarm and heartbreak. They expect their government to respond with credible action to reverse this decline. My amendments to the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 are simple and are in line with what the environmental community and integrity organisations have been calling for. My amendments create an independent board to sit above NEPA, as is common with many other organisations. This board would oversee the functions of NEPA and, importantly, select the CEO. The board's functions would include appointing the CEO, determining policies and long-term strategic plans for the CEO, advising the CEO, and assessing and reporting on the CEO's performance. The board would have up to seven members, each with substantial experience and knowledge and significant standing in an area relevant to NEPA's functions. At least one board member must be an Indigenous person.

Critically, the board would be appointed through a robust and independent selection process, a process that most people would expect to be in place for positions as important as these. The selection process would require public advertising of the board positions, assessment of applications against selection criteria, and an independent panel to conduct the interviews and shortlist three candidates for each position for the minister's final selection. The minister would also decide which board member is selected as chair.

If a perception arises that a CEO is appointed because of who they know or their political proclivities rather than what they bring to the role, public trust in the integrity of the institution will be undermined. These amendments are common sense, and I've spent years now in this place pointing out the need for a greater level of independence in major Commonwealth public appointments such as this. Having a truly independent national EPA will be a critical factor in whether we do actually turn around the decline of our nature over the next decade. Australians, business and environment groups deserve a NEPA—a National Environmental Protection Agency—they can trust, and that means it has to be established in such a way that it is truly independent. This requires both the board and the CEO to be independently appointed. I commend these amendments to the House.

The government will not be supporting the amendments. The model that the government has decided to adopt for the National Environmental Protection Agency is that of a non-corporate Commonwealth entity. This provides an optimal model for independence for matters of compliance and enforcement while maintaining democratic accountability for approvals. This model involves standard statutory appointment processes for the CEO and is ultimately accountable to the minister. A board is not complementary to this model. Instead, the CEO of the EPA can appoint advisory groups to be able to assist them and provide advice on their functions.

I'm aggrieved by this government, which has gagged debate time and time again. We have all been here witnessing what's been going on. What is this government hiding? They did not allow me the opportunity to speak in consideration in detail and to ask the minister who is representing the environment minister in this House questions on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the bill that we are now talking about, the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025. We have questions, on behalf of Australians, that this minister will not answer. He will not give the coalition the opportunity to ask questions in consideration in detail. Now, this does not look to me and this does not look to Australians to be a government that is willing to negotiate on the EPBC reform bills. To shut down debate, when I had 50 questions for you, Minister, in consideration in detail, and then to be closed—

The time allotted for this debate has expired.

Shame on you!

I need you to take your seat now, thank you. The question is that the amendment be agreed to; that's the question before the House now.

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

Almost every question time, we are joined by a Winter Olympian. The member for Warringah is quite rightly proud of her achievements, as are all Australians proud of her and what she did prior to being the member for Warringah, but today she has some distinguished company. Led by Chef de Mission Alisa Camplin and Deputy Chef de Mission Katya Crema, we have some extraordinary athletes in the gallery today who will be representing our nation at the 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympics at Milano and Cortina in February and March. This will be one of the biggest squads Australia has ever sent to a winter games and one of our most experienced, with a number of athletes competing in their third, fourth or fifth Olympics.

Training for the winter games demands incredible skill, dedication and sacrifice. In a country like Australia, it also requires creativity and the ability to improvise. Josh Hanlon grew up in Weethalle in New South Wales in the wheatbelt. It is hard to imagine a landscape less likely to produce a world-class para-alpine skier. In Brisbane, Abbey Willcox trains on a ski ramp that launches into a swimming pool. In so many disciplines, Australians have found a way to pursue their Olympic dream. You should all be so proud of everything you have already achieved in representing the best nation on Earth, and you can be absolutely certain that, when you wear the green and gold in Italy next year, all Australians will be proud of you and cheering for you. That is the Australian way.

Just as you and your teammates were inspired to represent our nation on the world stage by the heroics of a previous generation of Australian champions, including Zali Steggall, what you do at the 2026 Games will inspire our future Olympians and Paralympians. The 2022 Winter Olympics delivered a record medal tally for Australia. In the best of Australian sporting tradition, I know you'll be looking to go one better. So all of us will be wishing you well and cheering you on. On behalf of every Australian, best of luck and enjoy the experience.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Today, we welcome to parliament some of the finest examples of Australian courage, discipline and spirit: our Winter Olympians and Paralympians. To those here in the chamber, and those who have joined us in Parliament House during the day, we say 'thank you' for inspiring a nation. You are more than athletes. You are role models, mentors and dream makers. You remind every young Australian that greatness is not confined to where you are born but found in the courage to chase your dreams—even if those dreams lead you to snow, ice and mountains half a world away. In just 92 days time, Team Australia will head to Milan and Cortina to represent our nation in the Winter Olympic Games. Around 55 athletes will wear the green and gold across 12 disciplines, including new events like ski mountaineering and dual moguls. It's a reflection of how far we've come as a winter sport nation. They follow in the footsteps of legends who made history before them, from Alisa Camplin's golden moment in Salt Lake City to Jakara Anthony's triumph in Beijing—and, of course, there is the member for Warringah. These are athletes who show the world that Australia can stand tall on snow and ice.

Just a few weeks later, our Paralympic team will carry that same spirit into competition, led by Chef de Mission Ben Troy and team captain Sean Pollard. With qualifications secured in a record four sports, and Paralympic stars like Georgia Gunew, Ethan Jackson and Josh Hanlon leading the charge, our Paralympians are showing once again that courage and commitment know no boundaries. These games will mark 50 years since Australia first competed at the Winter Paralympics, a milestone worthy of reflection and celebration. From Michael Milton's legendary gold in 1992 to the athletes preparing today, our Paralympians remind us that strength is not measured by what life gives you but by how fiercely you rise to meet it. So to all our Winter Olympians and Paralympians, past, present and future: we wish you every success as you complete your preparations and head to the northern snow and ice. You carry our hopes, our pride and all our love of country.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Foodbank hunger report 2025 shockingly reveals that 20 per cent of Australian households are severely food insecure, and that parents are skipping meals so that their kids can eat. Commenting on Labor's cost-of-living measures, Foodbank has said that they 'didn't translate to food on the tables'. Prime Minister, why are more Australians going hungry under Labor?

The modern Liberal Party is not so much a broad church these days as a temple of doom. They talk everything down, each and every day. They vote against every single cost-of-living measure that we put in place. They argue that opposing tax cuts somehow doesn't make a difference to the capacity of people to get by. They argue that cheaper medicines won't assist people to get the health care that they need. They argue that free TAFE is something that people don't value—that to be able to get a job and upskill themselves is something they won't value. They argue that the creation of over a million jobs in just over—

Opposition members interjecting—

And they interject again, Mr Speaker. They won't learn. They didn't read Dennis Shanahan's comments over the last 24 hours, because if they did—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The member for Gippsland and the Leader of the Nationals! I'm going to take the temperature down. I want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition on her point of order.

My point of order is on relevance, Mr Speaker. Sledges don't feed people. Can the Prime Minister give a straight answer?

No. Resume your seat. I've been trying to deal all week with the appropriateness of points of order. I've been more than generous with the Leader of the Opposition and members. I simply say that that is absolutely unacceptable.

An honourable member interjecting—

Order! No. We just can't have question time descend into this, where people just get up and say what they feel like saying. So I'm just going to counsel the opposition leader not to do that again. The Prime Minister was asked a question about cost-of-living measures and his policies regarding food security. It was a very broad question; I think everyone can agree with that. So the Prime Minister is being directly relevant. No more frivolous points of order. The Prime Minister has the call.

Those opposite haven't learnt. They interjected across the chamber. If they don't want attention drawn towards their interjections, which show their real views, they shouldn't make them.

The member opposite, when I spoke about the more than one million jobs that have been created and the lowest unemployment rate of any government in the last 50 years, interjected 'government jobs'. That exposes two things: (1) that they don't understand the jobs that have been created in the private sector and (2) their contempt for people who provide service delivery, including clearing out the waiting lists in Veterans' Affairs that we inherited—people who've served our nation in uniform and who then were denied their entitlements as a result of the cuts that were made by those opposite. That's why we remember that they went to the election saying they would sack 46,000 public servants. Then they said these public servants were all in Canberra, ignoring the fact that public servants in Centrelink, in Veterans' Affairs are out there in their electorates as well as in this electorate, in all of these communities and particularly in regional Australia, performing such an important role.

But of course the Leader of the Opposition, who asked this question, was part of a government that ripped $20 million from Foodbank. Then they have the hide to raise Foodbank— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on the plan backed by experts to provide cleaner, cheaper and more-reliable energy? Why is listening to trusted expert advice important? How does this approach compare with others?

I thank my honourable friend for her question. The Albanese government is delivering on a plan for cheaper, more-reliable energy for Australians, including 113,267 home batteries that have been installed since 1 July—2.3 gigawatt hours. Interestingly, nine of the top 10 electorates for cheaper home batteries are below the median weekly wage. So this is support going to those Australians who need it in order to reduce their energy bills. We're also delivering, through Solar Sharer, our plan to see more Australians being able to access free solar energy in the middle of the day, even if they don't have solar panels and a battery. All this is also leading to October being the first month in Australian history that we got 50 per cent of our power from renewable energy, in the NEM.

For how long?

On average—not for a few minutes but on average. That's how the monthly figures work: on average.

This is a plan designed by Australian experts and backed by Australian experts—the CSIRO, AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Commission and the Australian Energy Regulator—all of whom have told the government repeatedly that renewables are the cheapest form of energy and that the biggest threat to reliability in the system is coal-fired power.

There is an alternative approach. On Saturday we saw the National Party announce that they are scrapping net zero. It'll be just a little while before the Liberal Party follows. The Leader of the National Party had justification. He called on expert reports. He said Net Zero Australia has said it will be somewhere between $7 trillion and $9 trillion, and Rainforest Reserves have already made it clear that going to an all-renewables approach would be $1.382 trillion. So he's quoting Net Zero Australia and Rainforest Reserves.

Let's have a look at the Leader of the National Party's experts. Net Zero Australia issued a statement today. It says:

Different individuals and groups have been misrepresenting key cost estimates from the NZAu Australia Project as 'the cost of Australia reaching net zero'. These misrepresented costs have typically ranged from $1.5 trillion to $9 trillion.

Does that sound familiar? I wonder who they were talking about misrepresenting them! Then we've got Rainforest Reserves. They've been quoting a lot of people. Rainforest Reserves quoted the Journal of Cleaner Production, who support their cases. The publishers of that journal were asked about the references, and they said:

These references appear to be hallucinated and do not exist—we have not found any articles with those titles published in Elsevier journals.

'Hallucinations' is a common theme. We've got the National Party and the Liberal Party following each other to net zero. It'll only be a few minutes before it's announced that the Liberal Party's followed them. The party of Menzies has become the party of Sky News frenzies.

We had the member for Cook interject nine times there and the Leader of the Nationals interject 11 times, so we're going to give it a break, because you've had a good go.

My question goes to the Treasurer. The RBA's forecast shows that, if it were to offer any further rate relief, inflation would not get back to the 2½ per cent target. Noting the national accounts show government consumption still growing faster than household consumption, will the Treasurer admit that, with his foot on the accelerator and the governor's on the brake, he is making it impossible for the RBA to offer further relief?

Not for the first time, the shadow Treasurer's foot is in his mouth. The reason for that is that the Reserve Bank made it very clear, in the course of coming to its decision earlier in the week, that government spending had nothing to do with it. They didn't mention it in the press conference. They didn't mention it in the press release. When they released their updated forecasts, they downgraded their expectations for public spending in our economy.

I acknowledge that there are a number of challenges, but one of the welcome developments in our economy is that the private sector has been taking over. In fact, over the last two or three quarters, the private sector has been resuming its rightful role as the primary driver of growth in our economy. In fact, for the last two quarters, public demand has made no contribution to growth. The shadow Treasurer really ought to know that. In a week where the opposition leader's judgement has been repeatedly called into question, I wanted to say that I think it's a credit to the strategic nous of the Leader of the Opposition to give the shadow Treasurer a question, because nothing does the shadow Treasurer's leadership ambitions more harm than to stand him in front of a microphone that's turned on.

I already answered this question earlier in the week, and I made it very clear earlier in the week that. If he is saying that the budget is the primary determinate of movements in interest rates in our economy, we've had three interest rate cuts this year, including two interest rate cuts since the budget I handed down from this dispatch box in March. If he wants to be honest about the view of the Reserve Bank, I encourage him to check out what the Reserve Bank governor said about the two surpluses that we have delivered and the fact that, in the third year, the deficit is much smaller than what we inherited. Because of all of that, debt is much lower compared to other countries and also, I would say, compared to what we inherited from those opposite.

The last point I would make is that the shadow Treasurer is precisely the last person that I will take advice from when it comes to responsible economic management. He is the guy that wanted to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to build nuclear reactors, which would push the price of electricity up, not down.

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australia's critical minerals sector? Why is reliable energy so important for this sector, and what other proposals have been put forward?

I thank the member for Bullwinkel for her fine question. She understand that Australia's resources sector is central to the net zero transition not only of this country but of the world. The global clean energy transition simply doesn't happen without Australia's resources and critical minerals, and that's whether it is the solar rays or the wind turbines powering homes and cities around the world, or indeed those powering the resources sector.

The resources sector get this. They know of the need to support net zero and the reliable energy which it will provide. Take, for instance, Liontown's Kathleen Valley lithium project, an underground lithium mine in the northern goldfields—87 per cent powered by renewable energy. Just next door, nearby to the north, the Bellevue gold mine has hit 100 per cent renewable power—an underground gold mine in the northern goldfields. It also hit net zero power by the August just passed. That is a remarkable achievement for the resources sector, and it sets a new benchmark of green energy powering this sector in this country. The transition to net zero by 2050 represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Australia's resources sector, and this government's policies will bring in—and is bringing in—the private capital and investment, creating thousands of new jobs and driving growth in our regions.

I'm asked about other proposals. Well, there is the proposal to cling to the $600 billion nuclear fantasy that was comprehensively rejected by Australian voters at the last election. Those opposite also continue to oppose the production tax credit incentive for critical minerals, and now they are walking away from net zero all together. To paraphrase one observer from Western Australia, only a mug would walk away from net zero. I could quote the WA leader of the Liberals, Basil Zempilas, in full:

Only a mug would not heed the lessons of two elections back to back. To walk away, to suddenly decide, 'Oh, I know best. Don't worry about what the election results said.'

That was the WA Liberal leader, Basil Zempilas. Now we see in Western Australia, the strongest resources state in this country, clear bipartisan support from the Liberals and the Labor government to support net zero. It really is quite a thing that those opposite decide to reject net zero and, therefore, reject what the resources sector knows is best for this country, what this government on this side has legislated for while mad division and chaos will see the Nationals squabble with the Liberals. Obviously, the split is coming; we can't wait to see it. Good luck to you on that. Meanwhile, this government will get on with delivering jobs across the regions for this country. (Time expired)

Before I call the honourable member for Kooyong, I acknowledge and welcome a few people to parliament. Sitting in the distinguished visitors gallery today is the Hon. Liam Bignell, the Speaker of the House of Assembly in South Australia.

I see former minister the Hon. Mark Arbib, the Chief Executive of the Australian Olympic Committee, in the gallery.

I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Mr Gary Ramage—Rammo, as he is affectionately known in the federal press gallery. He is retiring after 19 years as a photographer here at Parliament House and 34 years as one of Australia's leading photojournalists. I understand that Rammo is relocating to Perth to support his two younger sisters with cancer. On behalf of all members, I thank you for your service and wish you and your sisters strength and courage.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is for the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Australian medical research saves lives. It boosts our economy. It improves our domestic security and it provides aid to our region. The Medical Research Future Fund was established to support the sector with $1 billion dollars a year, but your government is spending only $650 million annually. Could you please tell the dozens of medical researchers in the gallery today why it is that you're withholding the support that we committed to, and that their sector needs and deserves?

Thank you to the Prime Minister for giving me the opportunity to answer the member's question. Can I say, first of all, how much we value your experience and contributions in this place to health policy generally—particularly the time you're taking to represent and advocate the interests of the medical research institute sector, which has been in the building over the last several days. You and I were both at the AAMRI dinner the other night with a number of members—at least on this side of the House—and Senator Ruston was there as well.

This is a question you've asked before, over the last couple of weeks, to me and to the Treasurer. Our position hasn't changed. I do want to take the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the MRFF. This is an institution of which both sides of the House can be proud. We initiated the process to set it up when we were last in government, and I had ministerial responsibility for this area. To their credit, it was put in place—and now has a capital of about $24 billion—by the former government, and, as you say, it distributes about $650 million each and every year.

I heard some remarks in a release from the member and a number of the institutes earlier today about the success rate and applicants that had not been able to receive funding from the MRFF. As the member well knows, success rates for all of the government's research funds are well short of 100 per cent, so well short of 100 per cent of good, worthy applicants are actually able to receive funding. I think, actually, the MRFF has a success rate above the others. It's about 30 per cent and has been about 30 per cent through the course of its time. The ARC, I think, has a success rate closer to 20 per cent. The MREA from the NHMRC has a success rate of 15 per cent. We'd all like that to be higher, but the MRFF performs pretty well.

As the Treasurer said last week, though, I think, the government is taking this very seriously. As I said and the Treasurer said, we are pulling together a single, united, national health and medical research strategy under the leadership of Rosemary Huxtable AO, former secretary of the finance department and former deputy secretary of the department of health.

I can't believe the Leader of the Opposition is interjecting about health and medical research, but such is life. Once that strategy is delivered as a final document—and it will be very shortly—we will use that and the 10-year statutory review of the MRFF, which the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance recently received and published, to consider a range of things, including the matter that the member has now raised a few times in question time over the last couple of weeks and that was the subject of quite some advocacy by the medical research institute sector as well.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitments to the Australian people to make a positive difference to their lives?

I thank the member for Menzies for his question—my favourite ever member for Menzies, it must be said. Six months on from the election, our Labor government is delivering the plans and policies that the Australian people voted for on 3 May.

We committed to cut student debt by 20 per cent and we delivered it. We committed to making medicines cheaper and we've delivered that. We expanded paid parental leave and super paid on PPL, and we've delivered that as well. We committed to the biggest ever women's health program, including reproductive health, and we have delivered that. We committed to $10,000 bonuses for construction apprentices and paid prac for teachers, nurses, social workers and midwives, and we have delivered that. We committed to enshrine penalty rates into law, protecting weekend and overtime pay, and we have delivered that. We said we'd cut taxes for every single taxpayer; we, of course, delivered that, and we'll top up tax cuts next year and the year after. We committed to the largest investment boost ever in Medicare, tripling the bulk-billing incentive, and on Saturday we delivered that. We committed to 50 urgent care clinics, going on top of the 87 that we had already opened in our first term, and they are opening right around the country, including one very soon—before parliament comes back—in the electorate of Grayndler. We also committed to ban social media for under-16s—so that kids have time to be kids, rather than engaging on their devices—to get our youngest Australians offline and into life.

Today we're joined in the gallery by a courageous 12-year-old, Florence—or Flossie, as she likes to be called—who's here with her mum and a neurologist expert from Hobart in Tasmania. Flossie was good enough to give me this friendship bracelet, and I thank her for it. I declare it on the register at this time! The work that Florence has done, as a young Australian, to inspire other children to embrace activities other than being on their devices is quite extraordinary. This is a social change backed by both sides of this parliament that has come from the bottom up. It's come from parents who have lost their sons and daughters, but it's also come from young people like Flossie, who's out there with her peers, saying: 'Get engaged in sport. Get engaged in music. Get engaged in reading. Get engaged in communicating with each other in order to benefit your life, not just in the period until you turn 16 but so that your life is better all the way through'—because Flossie has investigated what the neurological impact is of social media and the harm that it does. She is an articulate, inspiring advocate, and on behalf of this parliament—I think, everyone in this parliament—I say thank you for the work that you are doing and the leadership you are giving to young Australians.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

():  My question is to the Prime Minister. According to Anglicare's 2025Cost of living index, single-parent families on minimum wage are left each week with $1 after covering essential expenses like rent, transport, and food. Foodbank's Hunger report 2025 states that nearly 68 per cent of single-parent households are now going hungry. Prime Minister, in light of these disturbing figures, why are more Australians going hungry under Labor?

I thank the member for her question. Of course, she's new to this House. She wasn't here when all of the cuts were made by the former government when they were in office, or when the pluses that we've moved in, of cost-of-living help, were opposed by her Liberal and National Party colleagues. I wish the member all the best in encouraging a turnaround in the Liberal Party's position when it comes to assisting people, because all of the measures that we have put forward—whether it be the changes to Medicare, the cuts to the cost of medicines, the improvements to the minimum wage, the improvements to taxpayers with tax cuts—have been opposed by those opposite.

We understand that the job of assisting people is never done. That's why we're focused on it. That's why we also point out just the fact that those opposite, when they were in government, ripped $20 million from Foodbank each and every year.

And they interject again. They 'put it back', they say. So they concede that the cuts were there, each and every year, and then they say, 'Oh, well, we put it back.'

I'm asked about single parents, as well. One of the things that I'm very proud of is that, in our first budget, we changed the single parenting payment so that it applies until the youngest child reaches the age of 14—something that was never done by those opposite. If there's one thing I'm not going to be lectured about by those opposite, it's looking after kids from single-parent families. That is something I'm not going to be lectured on by the bunch of people opposite, who've never seen an increase in living standards that they didn't oppose, who stand up and continue to argue against minimum wage increases and continue to argue about tax cuts and who had a Leader of the Opposition who gave a speech about the culture of dependency. What do you think that means? That means cuts, more cuts and even more cuts; and we know that's the case, because that's their form.

My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to make the most of the global move to cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy? How does this compare to other approaches?

I appreciate the question from the member for Banks, who brings a great deal of experience, expertise and collegiality to our team, and I thank him for his contribution.

The key conclusions from the detailed Treasury modelling that we've released are that an orderly transition to cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy will boost investment, lift living standards and strengthen our economy. That's why it's a golden opportunity for our economy, and that's why it's our policy. A really important part of this, and a really important part of making our economy more productive as well, is making it easier and faster to build more reliable renewable energy. That's why our EPBC reforms are good for our environment and good for the economy, because they'll help attract the investment that we need in an orderly energy transformation.

The alternative to this is a disorderly transition, which would create investor uncertainty and would cost our economy dearly. The Treasury has made it clear, in their modelling document, that the only thing worse than a disorderly transition to net zero would be the policy that we think that they have now agreed to—the only outcome worse than a disorderly transition would be if we abandoned net zero entirely, which is what those opposite are now calling for. Abandoning net zero would be economic insanity of the highest order. What they are contemplating over there would be economic extremism of the very worst kind. What this shows is that their extremism isn't just some kind of phase they're going through; it's now their permanent state. That is the most divided, most divisive, most extreme and least credible opposition in memory.

But, while those opposite are divided, this government and this Prime Minister are delivering. A considered, orderly, responsible transition to cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy is an important part of our economic plan, and there's a good reason for that. That's because this will strengthen our economy and create more opportunities for more Australians, and that's what this side of the House is all about. That's because we are a mainstream government, delivering for the people who send us here, and we won't be distracted by the daily madness that we see over there.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order, members on my left.

I hear those opposite interjecting. I mentioned 'economic insanity' before. The dumbest thing we could do as a country would be the policy proposal that the shadow Treasurer took to the last election, which was to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear reactors which would push energy prices up, not down. The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that we are working through these issues in a considered and methodical way to invest more in cleaner and cheaper energy; those opposite have gone absolutely crazy, and the economy would pay a price as a consequence.

I'm pleased to inform the House that we've just been joined in the gallery by the Australian AusPol 37th delegation from the United States of America. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you all.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Resources. Yesterday the Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, was wandering around parliament pleading with every minister who would listen to please, please, please not cave in to the Labor Left dominated backbench on the EPBC bills. Will the minister listen to the Premier of her own state or to her left-wing backbench?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I don't want to issue a general warning, but interjections are highly disorderly. I want to hear from the Leader of the House on his point of order.

ThePractice makes clear the issues on which ministers can be questioned. Often I raise a point of order because there's one of the things in the list of the question that is out of order. On this occasion I don't think there is anything in what was just asked that is in order. None of it refers to the responsibilities of the minister. A question about whether someone who has been a member of the Left for 40 years—there is no level on which that question is not bizarre, but there is also no level on which that question is in order.

They forgot Mamdani.

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

The member for Chifley then left the chamber.

The member for Moncrieff is entitled to ask her question. To assist the House, she can make it just relevant to the minister's portfolio and, perhaps, the piece of legislation she's referring to—it may be with approvals or whatever. All I'm asking is for the member to make it relevant to what the minister is responsible for, rather than a comment.

My question is to the Minister for Resources. Yesterday the Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, was wandering around parliament, pleading with every minister who would listen to please, please, please not cave in to the Labor Left dominated backbench on the EPBC bills. Will the minister listen to the Premier of her own state about critical minerals, or to her left-wing backbench here in Canberra?

The minister was asked about critical minerals, so that's fine. She's responsible for that.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! No. We're not having anyone behave like that. The member's question is in order. It's a very broad question, but the minister will be able to answer it regarding her portfolio.

Thank you for that question. It's an interesting one—no doubt about it. I'm always pleased to be asked about the critical minerals sector of this country. I'm also really pleased to be asked about how Premier Roger Cook and I, and this government, are on a unity ticket with the development of critical minerals in this country.

Opposition members interjecting—

Those opposite can interject all they want. They have referred to 'unhinged backbenchers'. Well, I can tell you where I can see them. I only need to look straight ahead, but you might need to look behind you.

I might, then, reflect on the backbench of our party. It's a fine backbench. Each and every single one of these people behind me represents a Labor government that is working for the resources sector of this country, that is working for the critical minerals sector of this country, that is working to achieve the legislative drive of this country and this government, under this Prime Minister, to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Every single one of these people is working together in the interests of this country. Right around the country, whether it be Western Australia or Queensland, or every place in between, they know what is good for this country, because they work for this country. They listen to their communities, unlike those opposite, who just listen to one another, as we well know. All we see in the newspapers, from day to day, is what the next argument is.

You come into this chamber and ask me about the critical minerals sector and about the critical minerals strategy of this government. Let's have a look at yours. The last time I looked at the critical minerals strategy issued by the opposition when they were in government in 2022—

Order!

How often do you think—

The minister will pause.

Honourable members interjecting—

No. The member for Moncrieff is entitled to raise her point of order and she's not going to be interjected upon.

Mr Speaker, it is around relevance, because the minister was not asked about those on this side. The minister was asked about critical minerals, and the Western Australian Premier wandering around begging you all to listen to—

Resume your seat. As I explained, there was a pretty broad brushstroke. So if the minister can return to the critical minerals—and she is doing some compare-and-contrast, but, for the remainder of her answer, I don't want her to just specifically talk about opposition policy, because she wasn't asked about opposition policy. But she'll be allowed some leniency because of the nature of the question.

As I said before, I am more than happy to speak about critical minerals. What we have observed, in this place, is how important the reforms to the EPBC Act will be for critical minerals and rare earths projects. They will be important for the framework agreement that the Prime Minister signed with President Trump just a couple of weeks ago when we were together in Washington.

It's this Labor government and these backbenchers on this side that are working towards implementing that framework and getting environmental protection legislation that works for the environment—'Heaven forbid!' those opposite—but also works for industry and for the community.

And what do those opposite do? They do absolutely nothing. They don't want to talk about it. They don't want to help the resources sector. They sure don't want to help the environment. You go back to your communities and ask them what they think. We will represent your communities, because you are clearly not doing it. We will work in the interests of the Australian people, while you just vacillate in your division and chaos for as long as you choose to. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government's investment in Medicare urgent care clinics helping Australians to get urgent care when they need it? How do urgent care clinics help strengthen Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect?

No! No. The member for Lyne will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Lyne then left the chamber.

Honourable members interjecting—

No. She's had a pretty good go this week. Order! It may be Thursday, but everyone's still got to follow the rules.

It just reminds us that the leadership, the frontbench, of those opposite hate urgent care clinics. Their backbench, though, are very supportive of them—constantly advocating for one, sending us emails and starting up petitions! If only their frontbench let them get what they want!

But I thank the member for Cunningham for her question and for her advocacy for a stronger Medicare in the Illawarra, particularly in Wollongong. She is a fierce advocate for strengthening Medicare, but also, I have to say, a really fierce advocate for better aged-care services. She understands the aged-care sector incredibly well and is constantly talking to me and to the aged-care minister about how we can improve things for her community, and I thank her for that.

I also know that she is incredibly appreciative of the record investment in bulk-billing. Can I say that, in just the last week, the number of bulk-billing clinics in her electorate hasn't just doubled; it hasn't just tripled; it has quadrupled, in just a week. We've seen a big increase in the neighbouring electorate of Whitlam as well—a big increase in bulk-billing for the people of the Illawarra.

She is also a great advocate for the Corrimal urgent care clinic in Wollongong. Already that has seen 30,000 people from her community, all fully bulk-billed, getting high-quality urgent care. She pointed out that there was a particularly high-profile patient there recently: the health reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald, who wrote a piece this morning, titled 'I thought Albo's urgent care clinics were a waste—until I needed one'! And, with all of the zeal you would expect from a convert, he then went on to describe a very unfortunate incident where his surfboard went into his foot, and cut it quite considerably, on the weekend. He went into the Corrimal urgent care clinic, which he found on his phone. He received incredibly high-quality urgent care, completely free of charge. As I say, I thanked him for it. He's written this very fine piece promoting what is a terrific initiative for a stronger Medicare for the whole country.

We have two urgent care clinics in the Illawarra already—30,000 people through the Corrimal urgent care clinic, and 20,000 through the Dapto urgent care clinic, in the neighbouring electorate of Whitlam. Rounding it out, in the coming couple of weeks we'll be in a position to announce the provider for the Shellharbour urgent care clinic, in the southern part of the Illawarra, as well. That's just one of the 50 urgent care clinics we promised across the country at the last election. Three of them are already open. I'm confident the rest of them will be opened over the course of this summer—hopefully, as many as possible by Christmas. Once that is done, two million people—like the health reporter from the SMHevery single year will get that high-quality urgent care. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. When asked about the Prime Minister's promise to reduce power bills by $275, the Labor member for Solomon said, 'How long are you guys going to hang on to that $275 piece?' Prime Minister, are power bills $275 lower now than in May 2022?

I thank the member for his question. We know that our friend the member for Hume had an interesting thing prior to 2022 where he actually intervened to change the law to hide where power prices were. I'm not sure why he's not here, but I wish him well. Yesterday, of course, they had another quote from the member for Solomon. I don't know how he got onto Sky News, but I congratulate him for squeezing in between all those frontbenchers who have spent day after day, week after week, giving us—I assure you—quotable quotes that are there forever, bagging each other, speaking about how Australia will become a pariah state if they accept the view of those opposite in the National Party and some of the Liberal Party about abolishing net zero.

We have a very clear position when it comes to energy going forward. It is to support the cheapest form of new energy, which is renewables, and to then support it being backed up by batteries and storage, as well as gas for firming capacity. That is our position. That is the way forward, not the fantasy that those opposite indulge in.

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. How are the Albanese Labor government's aged-care reforms delivering safer, fairer and more dignified care for older Australians? Why were these reforms so critical?

I thank my friend the outstanding member for Lalor for her question and, more importantly, for her outstanding advocacy for older people in the community that we share in Melbourne's west. I was so proud to visit Sunset Views Manor in Tarneit with her over the weekend to meet the wonderful staff who deliver exceptional care to older people in our region.

On Saturday Australia turned the page on aged care, taking a once-in-a-generation step forward for older Australians. After nine long years of neglect under the Liberals, the Albanese Labor government is delivering the reforms older Australians were promised—safer, fairer, more dignified care.

The new Aged Care Act and brand new Support at Home program are now in effect, putting the rights of older people at their centre. For the first time, the new act enshrines in law a statement of rights, guaranteeing that every older Australian has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, to make choices about their own care and to live free from abuse or neglect.

Support at Home is a simpler, fairer system that helps more Australians stay in their homes for longer. It means a higher level of care, less red tape and more flexibility for people to get the support they actually need, from help with personal care to home modifications and assistive technology. For people in residential care, we've lifted the bar on safety and quality, with stronger standards, a more powerful regulator and mandatory staffing levels that ensure every resident receives more direct care every single day.

These are the reforms the royal commission called for. They're reforms that older Australians deserve. While those opposite spent nine years failing older people and avoiding this overdue reform, our government has acted. Older Australians have contributed so much to their communities and to our country, they deserve a system that treats them with the respect they've earned over a lifetime. From Saturday, that's exactly what Labor has put into place—real reform, real improvements to the way we care for our loved ones.

I'm pleased to inform the House that, to date, the transition has gone smoothly, including the first tranche of ICT system updates that operationalise aspects of these reforms and that make navigating aged care simpler and smoother. We'll continue to monitor the changes closely to make sure the system is accessible, easy and fair for older Australians to use.

Labor's reforms are delivering better care: safer, fairer, and more dignified for every older Australian for generations to come.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. The Northern Beaches Hospital in Mackellar has provided both public and private services under a public-private partnership. Following the private operator Healthscope entering receivership in May this year, the announcement that public services would be transitioned to NSW Health was indeed very welcome. However, there is great uncertainty about the continuation of the world-class private services delivered there. Minister, what reassurance can you provide my community regarding ongoing access to all the private services at Northern Beaches Hospital?

I acknowledge the member's advocacy for the return of this privatised hospital, effectively, to public hands. Can I remind the House that no Labor government has privatised hospitals over the last 30 years, while Liberal government after Liberal government around the country has persisted with this failed experiment of privatising public acute care hospitals.

The first time I dealt with it was in the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide, back in the 1990s, when Healthscope—the same company—was given the contract to run the Modbury Hospital. The member for Makin will remember: it was a debacle and had to be brought in-house. We've seen repeat after repeat of this failed Liberal Party experiment to privatise our public acute care hospitals. We know the Auditor-General's report from New South Wales confirmed that sense of failure. It doesn't integrate properly into the public hospital system—that's what the New South Wales Auditor-General found—and there is a tension between profit and proper clinical care that should not happen in an acute care public hospital.

The private hospital system, as the member knows better than most, is very different. It's largely there for planned procedures—

Of course, here you go: the Liberal Party seeking to defend failed privatisation experiments, because, at the end of the day, like Pavlov's dog, they return to the idea that we should have a privatised model of health care. That's not the member's view. It's not the Labor Party's view.

I do know, though, that the very hard work the New South Wales Minister for Health is doing here to unwind this privatisation, over a relatively short period of time, is one that is seeking to reassure, first of all, doctors, nurses and other healthcare staff at that hospital that they'll have jobs and that the clinical services at this hospital will be up to scratch. I think there's a close process of consultation there. They'll all have jobs offered. Their entitlements will transfer to NSW Health if they choose to take up that offer.

As the member also knows, the New South Wales government is consulting closely with clinicians and the community about what private hospital services will continue to be available on that precinct, on that hospital site, and I'm keeping in touch with the New South Wales minister about that. Obviously, as the member knows, this is all complicated by the fact that Healthscope, more broadly, which runs well over 30 hospitals, including in the Northern Beaches and across the country, is now in receivership. So we are taking the lead as the Commonwealth for making sure that there is continuity of service from all of those other Healthscope hospitals. We took a decision as two governments that New South Wales Health would lead on, essentially, unwinding arrangements and guaranteeing private and public services on the Northern Beaches site. But, if the member wants me to update her and keep representing these issues to the New South Wales minister, of course, I'd be more than happy to.

My question is to be Minister representing the Special Minister of State. An infamous evil in history—and I quote—devised his movement: 'Repeat a lie continuously, continually and constantly, and people will believe it's the truth even though it is a lie.' The LNP Townsville are obviously fellow travellers. The Hinchinbrook by-election has had the worst lying I've encountered in 25 years in politics, and that's saying a lot. The LNP said, 'We support castle law.' They've opposed its introduction three times. 'We're not going to abolish coal.' They've kept the coal tax, which will abolish coal. Three mineshave effectively closed. The LNP said KAP candidate Molachino had been for Labor. We have the text messages showing the LNP approached him as their first-choice candidate for Hinchinbrook. Minister, do we have an avenue to stop flagrant, unconscionable LNP lying?

I'm going to get you to withdraw the last part of the statement because we had this discussion yesterday and we're not going down that path again.

'Untruths'.

Just withdraw. 'I withdraw'—that's all you need to say.

Alright. I withdraw that aspect of the question.

I thank the member. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, representing the Special Minister of State, it's a very broad question, because you're talking about a state issue. So, to make it relevant, the minister will have to make her answer relevant to Commonwealth law, and she won't be able to give much leeway around the state issue, because she's not responsible for state issues. The minister has the call.

I'd like to thank the member for Kennedy for his question. One thing he did reference in his question was his long and distinguished public service. I would like to recognise the unveiling of his portrait today, which recognises that 50 years. I think we can all agree it is a striking portrait at that.

Going to the member for Kennedy's question, as the Speaker has rightly pointed out, this is in the jurisdiction of Queensland state law. But I do agree with the member for Kennedy that truthful content in political communication is a genuine issue. It is an issue that has been examined by this parliament through several avenues. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters considered this issue in its last term, resulting in the Special Minister of State introducing legislation for consideration, which contains a model to regulate and govern truth in political ads. There's an open invitation from the Special Minister of State for all members, including the member for Kennedy, and senators to meet with him to discuss this important reform. We know that regulating paid political communication and, indeed, more broadly, mis- and disinformation is a complex issue, with many members and senators having varied ideas, concerns and views on these types of pieces of legislation.

I also note that states and territories are in different stages of legislating this type of content in paid political communication, with my home state of South Australia being one of those with the most progress. The Australian Electoral Commission, one of the most trusted Commonwealth agencies, who have the primary task of running our federal elections, have made their views clear. The AEC have consistently given evidence that this is not an area of law that should be rushed or approached without careful consideration. This includes, of course, the question of who should be the authority and regulator of the content of truth and opinion. As the Commonwealth, we must consider the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication in any reform. But the member for Kennedy does raise an issue that concerns all elected members of parliament. I would say that one thing that I'm always reminded of regularly is that the Australian public are not silly; they often can see through these smear campaigns and rhetoric, and I always put trust in the Australian people.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How has the work of the Albanese Labor government this fortnight, both at home and abroad, been delivering for Australians, and are there any risks?

I thank the fantastic member for Moreton for her question. Stronger Medicare, cheaper medicines, cutting student debt, protecting penalty rates, building more homes, boosting Australian trade, lifting wages, backing jobs and backing Australian industry, and backing our future made in Australia. In the six months since the election, we've been focused on delivering the policies that Australians voted for on 3 May.

I'm asked about alternatives. The Liberals and Nationals keep talking about what Australians voted against. They're defined by what they're against because they can't work out what they're for. We talk about Medicare and back Medicare; they attack women's health, including some extraordinary speeches when it came to Priya's Law. We back Australia's interests overseas; they write to politicians in other jurisdictions about Australia's national policies. We support reliable, cheaper energy; they undermine our energy security. We fund housing, public housing, build-to-rent schemes and increased homeownership; they deny there was ever a problem and say they didn't need a minister. We work with unions and the business community; they attack workers' rights, and they also treat the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and ACCI as somehow the enemy—including, of course, the resources sector. That is who they are. That is what they believe. We are delivering. They are divided.

An opposition member: Tell us what you've done for veterans!

I get an interjection—come in, spinner—about veterans. The mess we had to fix as a result of their neglect and sacking of public servants—and then they went to the last election saying they would sack another 46,000! Then they give speeches about 'culture of dependency', which means cuts to jobs, cuts to welfare, cuts to support for people, cuts to pensions and services.

We are delivering. They are divided, divisive and despairing. They only have two settings—talking Australia down and dragging each other down. We're building Australia's future. They're afraid of it.

On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I present the 2025 Presiding Officers' statement regarding the condition of Parliament House.

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

If I may just give people an indication as to what we're dealing with: on our calculations, at the pace we've been going, we have about an hour and 10 minutes of government business to go. As I said earlier, we will start the MPI but we will not get very far into it.

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

The need for transparency and accountability in the Government's failed Administration of the CFMEU and the consequences for housing affordability.

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—

I know the government is going to do everything it has tried to do at every single point throughout the past two weeks to shut down a conversation about the corruption within the CFMEU and its direct connection back to this government. More important than that is we have a minister who is running interference and simply does not want to have accountability in the context of administration oversight.

So we are proud to stand up right now and speak out about the challenging problems of CFMEU corruption in Australia. We know the reality that is being faced. Fifteen months ago the CFMEU was put under administration by this government because there were systemic issues of corruption, including those revealed on television programs like 60 Minutes. Organised crime, criminal gangs and bikie gangs were infiltrating public projects and receiving cartel kickbacks that were going into the hands of those organised groups. They were being paid for by taxpayers. They were being paid for by mums and dads. They were being paid for by first home buyers, through the increased costs of housing, and by taxpayers and through debt, inflation and the high interest rates that Australians are experiencing right now. It led the Labor Party to, after letting the CFMEU off the leash, eventually accept administration.

It should never have come to this in the first place. The Labor Party should never have abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission and removed the leash on the CFMEU to allow the corruption that has pervaded across the Australian community. But, once they did—once they accepted that they had become the enabler of corruption across Australian building sites, construction sites and public projects—they were shamed and embarrassed by the media into eventually taking action. What was that action? They appointed administration designed to break the back of the corrupt culture that sits at the heart of the CFMEU.

Well, 15 months later, we now have a report card from whistleblowers. It's not the opinion of the opposition. It's certainly not the opinion of the government, who have the view to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil in the context of CFMEU corruption—and they certainly don't want to hear about CFMEU corruption. From whistleblowers through to the Nine press and of course 60 Minutes, people have been saying explicitly that the problems of CFMEU corruption are now worse, 15 months on, than they were beforehand. This is a scandal and a disgrace. When we have asked basic questions in this parliament we have gotten no answers. Yesterday the Prime Minister shut down question time rather than have a question asked of him about CFMEU corruption. And it looks like the Leader of the House is going to do exactly the same thing right now.

The Leader of the House?

First of all, on a point of order, I was listed to follow him—and I was really looking forward to it! But in effectively missing that opportunity for myself, I move:

That the business of the day be called on.

The question is that the business of the day be called on.

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Page 13 (after line 24), after clause 20, insert:

20A Publication of reasons

If a registrable decision is published on the register of registrable decisions, the reasons for the decision must also be published on the register.

My amendment to this bill continues the theme of transparency, this time for the new NEPA. Under this bill, the NEPA will pay a central role in approving, assessing and enforcing environmental decisions. These decisions will help shape the health of our environment and the credibility of the new system. Yet, as the bill stands, the NEPA is only required to publish notice of a decision, not the reasoning behind it. Earlier, I spoke about my amendment to the EPBC bill, which would require the environment minister to publish a statement of reasons for decisions made under the act. This amendment mirrors that change. If NEPA is to be the trusted independent body that the community expects, its decisions must be clear, consistent and explainable. My amendment would require the agency to publish a short statement of reasons for each significant decision, particularly any approval, rejection or enforcement.

I thank the member for the issues that have been raised. The government will not be supporting this amendment. Thousands of decisions are made under the EPBC Act every year, including things like issuing permits. Many decisions that would be published in the register are routine. Therefore, it would be undue administrative burden to require reasons to be published in every single circumstance. The current reforms, and specifically section 232 of the bill, provide that recommendation reports for approval decisions are published. This is an improvement on the current process that we have, where interested parties need to apply for a statement of reasons.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill and to this set of bills. I wasn't able to speak on consideration in detail on this bill before the House, because the government shut me down. I'm not going to get the opportunity to ask the minister representing the minister for the environment the long list of questions that I had to ask. And now I'm going to be allowed just a couple of minutes to say why we do not agree with these bills in their current form. I understand I'm speaking to a bill around administration that is linked to the reform bill. I understand the procedure and that we are speaking to the amendment. But what I would like to do is highlight the difficulties with this bill from the opposition's point of view.

I have stakeholders on both sides—on the conservation side and on business, industry and productivity—coming to me saying that this is not workable for them. And what I would like to put to the House and to Australians across the country is that the coalition has been shut down time and time again today when we've been trying to talk about the flaws in this group of bills.

I want to talk to the environmental protection authority, which will now have sweeping powers. It'll have a CEO that will not be able to be fired by the minister. If the CEO of the EPA is not performing very well, there will be no scrutiny from the minister.

There are some other problems with this bill. Unacceptable impacts in the bills—

I'm sorry to interrupt the member for Moncrieff, but this amendment is very prescriptive regarding registrable decisions. It's not a general debate. The member for Wentworth has moved her specific amendment, which is about 20A, publication of reasons. It's not a general debate, I'm sorry to inform you; it'll have to be about what is before the House, and the question I've stated is specifically about the member's amendment. It's very technical.

I understand, thank you, that amendment and how technical it is. There are very many technicalities in these bills. There are technicalities in all of the bills. There are administrative bills. There are seven bills in total, in fact, and the coalition hasn't had the opportunity to speak even to the reform bill in the House, apart from the second reading debate. There are many technicalities in this bill, covering many areas of problems. The EPA, the unacceptable impacts, the net gain and the streamlined pathways are all technicalities in this bill that need to be addressed.

Judging by its shutdown that we've seen today of democratic debate, this is not a government that looks like it is prepared to do any negotiation at all around these bills. There are technicalities that will have unintended consequences throughout all of these bills, which this government doesn't seem prepared to hear about—on these EPBC reforms. It's important.

The time has concluded.

Question negatived.

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

The member for Mitchell on a point of order?

The Leader of the House earlier made a point about staff in the despatch box. I want to draw to your attention that the staff were laughing at our member at the despatch box in the government box, and that behaviour is unacceptable as well.

I caution all staff in the advisers box and remind them that they are guests of the parliament. I want to ensure that all staff know that there are processes and proper procedures to follow while they are advising. I thank the manager.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question is that this bill be read a second time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I'll put the question immediately. The question is that the bill be read a second time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question is that the bill be read a second time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.

I move the amendments circulated in my name:

(1) Page 9 (after line 25), after clause 17, insert:

17A Review of methodology for calculating amount of restoration contribution charge

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the methodology for calculating the amount of restoration contribution charge to be undertaken every 2 years.

(2) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within the period (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be published on the Department's website within 20 days after receiving the report.

(2) Page 10 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

19 Methods prescribed by regulations

(1) The method for working out the amount of restoration contribution charge that is prescribed by the regulations must take into consideration the following matters:

(a) administration, such as ecological assessment, entering into a legal agreement to secure the site, rates and taxes that are applicable, and the cost of meeting reporting requirements;

(b) forgone use, such as the opportunity costs for landowner due to forgone uses;

(c) management, such as the cost of implementing the management plan during the maintenance period, including labour, materials and equipment;

(d) insurance and risk, such as for infrastructure or equipment, such as fencing, and for unforeseen circumstances that may impact offset delivery).

(2) If the regulations prescribe a method for working out the amount of bioregional plan registration charge, the regulations must take into account the matters in subsection (1).

These amendments are about a critical but largely unexamined element of the EPBC reforms: how we price environmental offsets. If we get the price wrong, the entire system will fail. Offsets are meant to restore nature. But if the cost of environmental damage is not reflected in the price paid, offsets don't work. Across Australia we've seen what happens when offsets are underpriced. Developers pay a small fee, their projects go ahead, and governments are left with the impossible task of finding enough land, time and money to make nature whole again. The result is a growing ecological deficit—an environmental credit card that never gets paid off.

Under these reforms the amount a developer pays into the offsets fund will be determined by a method set out in regulations. My concern is that, without strong legislative guidance, that method could again undervalue the true cost of restoration. That's why I'm moving these amendments that require that the method for setting this restoration contribution charge takes into account the full range of real-world costs involved in delivering a successful offset.

When we talk about restoring ecosystems, the price isn't just the cost of planting a few trees. Restoration is complex, risky and expensive. My amendments ensure that the calculation of the offset price must consider a range of factors, including: the costs of establishing, maintaining and monitoring projects, which are the practical, on-the-ground expenses of doing the work; the costs of identifying suitable sites, including the time and expertise required to find land that actually supports restoration; the costs of acquiring that land, including stamp duty and transaction costs; contingency costs, acknowledging the fact that projects fail and that success often requires multiple attempts; the added costs of remote locations, where logistics and labour are more difficult; and the additional cost of scarcity: when suitable sites are few and far between, the price should rise accordingly.

If we ignore these factors, we're not setting a fair price; we're setting nature up to fail. In too many jurisdictions—New South Wales, Queensland and overseas—offsets have ben chronically underpriced. That underpricing flows through the whole system. It means that restoration projects are underfunded from the start. It means that the offsets fund doesn't have enough money to deliver what was promised. And it means that we end up with a pay-to-destroy model dressed up as environmental reform.

By clearly defining the factors that must be included in the offsets pricing method, we make the system transparent, predictable and credible. These amendments are about integrity—financial integrity and ecological integrity. They ensure that when we talk about offsets we're talking about real restoration, not accounting fiction. I commend these amendments to the House.

I thank the member for Curtin for raising this issue and I respect absolutely that the role of offsets is something where integrity is critically important. As I've said in question time, the legislation also switches the concept from no net negative to net positive, which of itself is a significant change. The reasons the government won't be supporting these amendments are similar to some reasons I gave previously, but I'll give them now in response to the member for Curtin.

This government's environmental reforms will deliver better outcomes for the environment and industry. The bill's reforms will introduce new options for offsetting. Project proponents can either deliver an offset themselves or pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or a combination of both. A new independent Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental benefits, including through pooling funds or similar impacts. The government does not support these amendments because a new rulings power under the act fulfils the role of enabling the minister to determine that restoration contributions in all or particular circumstances are not appropriate as compensation for a particular protected matter. This mechanism does provide for flexibility and responsiveness by the minister as new information becomes available, including any advice of the Restoration Contributions Holder.

The proposed amendments would also remove flexibility and limit the environmental benefits of larger strategic restoration actions—for example, increasing connectivity or creating wildlife corridors. This approach would be better for the environment and better for business. We know the current offsets regime isn't working for industry or the environment, and we need to be able to do something differently to improve the system and deliver restoration at scale. The bill strikes a balance between allowing that to happen and learning the lessons from other offsets approaches that haven't worked.

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

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

For the information of members, the day on which the most divisions has ever been held was an overnight sitting from 9 to 10 April in 1935, when there were 83 divisions in a single sitting of the House of Representatives. As of today, we are in second place at 40 divisions. If anyone wants to break the record and stay here for a late night, let me know!

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 229: air service agreements: Saudi Arabia, Colombia and Peru.

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

by leave—Today I rise to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties's report into three treaty actions that establish the air service agreements between Australia and the Republic of Colombia, Australia and Peru, and Australia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. These agreements provide the legal framework for airlines to operate between Australia and each of these countries, including provisions for safety, security, regulation, compliance and commercial arrangements. These agreements mark the first treaty-level air service relationships between Australia and these three countries.

Australia maintains friendly and cooperative relationships with Saudi Arabia, Colombia and Peru underpinned by trade, education and shared international commitments. Saudi Arabia is a key partner through the G20 membership and growing tourism links, including the introduction of a new e-visa for Australian travellers. With Peru, Australia engages across the mining, agriculture, education and tourism sectors, supporting the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Australia and Colombia have enjoyed diplomatic relations since 1975, collaborating on a range of issues of mutual interest, including energy, infrastructure, education and transnational crime.

The agreements are expected to build on these bilateral relationships, delivering benefits to Australian travellers and businesses, particularly in tourism, education and the airport sector. The agreements will allow airlines from each country to set up offices in other countries, to sell and promote their flights, and to use local services and staff. Airlines can also handle their own ground operations or offer ground services to others, as long as safety rules are followed. Importantly, the airlines must be given fair chance to access airport slots and be treated no less favourably than other airlines.

At a public hearing held in October, the committee heard from representatives from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The committee explored the value of these agreements, noting the strong education links between Australia, Saudi Arabia, Peru and Colombia. The committee found a range of goods and trades that would benefit directly from flights under the proposed agreements. Cargo holds for international passenger aircraft are well suited for transporting goods of high value that are time sensitive. Cut flowers are an example of trade between Australia and Colombia, as well as beef exports to Peru.

One in three, or 3½ million, Australian households experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months, according to the Foodbank hunger report 2025, which was released yesterday. The report paints a stark picture of widening food insecurity across our nation, debunking the myth that hunger only affects the unemployed or the homeless. It affects people everywhere, including in my electorate of Bradfield.

The Foodbank hunger report 2025reveals that cost-of-living pressure remains the No. 1 concern for 91 per cent of food-insecure households, followed by housing and the broader economy. Behind the data, there are some real stories of families forced to skip meals so children can eat, workers going hungry to pay rising rents and people living with disability or illness struggling to put food on the table.

What is food insecurity? It's a broad spectrum. Marginal food insecurity means you're worried about whether your food will run out. That is the case for about 11 per cent of Australians, but they are not in the 'one in three' category I mentioned earlier. Food insecurity takes in those that are moderately to severely insecure. If you're moderately food insecure, that means you compromise your meal choices. That is the case for 13 per cent of Australians. That means you may not choose to buy proteins like beef or nuts, or you switch out fresh fruit produce for lower-priced, less-perishable frozen fruit. Severe food insecurity means you're skipping meals—not just possibly one meal but not eating for a whole day. A troubling 20 per cent of Australians are in this category, and it's having crushing impacts on individuals and families.

This week I spoke with a GP who told me that there are an increasing number of people, particularly women, presenting to his surgery with low health standards—fatigue, anaemia, anxiety, depression. When this happens, his first question goes to the patient's lifestyle and food choices, asking whether they are eating poorly or skipping meals. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is increasingly: yes, they are.

The report's most alarming findings include that one in two renting households have experienced food insecurity in the past year. Seven in 10 households that include someone with a disability or with a health issue have experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months. Three-quarters of them are in the 'severe' category. Nearly seven in 10 single-parent households are now food insecure. One in five households earning $91,000 or more experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.

All this, frankly, is crazy in a country like Australia in 2025—that families are skipping meals while, at the same time, good food is ending up in landfill. It's madness that it is cheaper for food producers to throw away perfectly good food than to donate it.

The good news is that, as well as properly analysing and explaining the problem, Foodbank have designed a solution. They've put on the table a sensible and modest tax change that would mean good food goes to people like the mum who goes without breakfast in the morning so her kids can eat before school, rather than that food going to landfill. The change would incentivise small and medium-sized food producers such as farmers and growers to donate surplus fresh food to registered food charities. It would do this by producing a cashback or tax credit for businesses based on the costs incurred in donating that food.

As I said, it's a small change—and I mean a modest government investment of around $50 million a year—and it would only cover a portion of the costs incurred by food producers when donating excess food to charities. But it would tip the scales when businesses are considering whether to donate or dump. Independent modelling shows a tax incentive by 2030 would deliver enough food for the equivalent of 100 million meals, save producers and businesses money and help halve food waste. This proposal is a win for families, a win for small and medium-sized producers who can find a new market for their produce and a win for the environment.

When I asked the Treasurer a question in question time yesterday, I was delighted to hear that he is aware of the idea for a tax incentive and that he takes these kinds of suggestions seriously. He said that Labor is always looking for ways to help people with the cost of living, especially the most vulnerable. I thank the Treasurer for his interest, and I'm excited about the opportunity to work with him and with the member for Fenner, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, to achieve this important reform that will so positively impact struggling Australian families.

Six months ago today, or thereabouts, the people of Hasluck asked me once again to represent them, and I carry their trust and aspirations with me.

Today is the final placement day for Maya Weiss, a student from the Australian National University who's been on internship with me. Maya is a keen student of linguistics and has prepared a research project on the use of explicit reading and writing instruction in primary schools in Hasluck and other electorates, for comparison, including the Speaker's electorate. I'm pleased to have been able to host Maya in my office, and I hope to use her findings to further my understanding and support educational outcomes in my electorate.

As my fashionable gen Z intern informed me, not only is 909 the moniker of a very crucial part of DJ history and culture but it's also the number of cheaper home batteries that we have so far made available in Hasluck. It maintains our commitment to affordable renewable energy, just as—I hope I say this in the right way—the TR-909 is committed to advancing techno music and my intern is committed to playing it out loud in my office.

Hear, hear!

I'm glad that you know what that's in reference to! I'm learning a lot from my intern.

I've had the privilege of welcoming new Aussies at citizenship ceremonies in Bassendean and Bayswater recently, with a couple more in Hasluck next week. Every story is different, but the demonstration of courage and resilience of many new families making Australia their home is truly inspiring. It's an honour to stand before them and say, along with the minister: Australia welcomes you and everything you bring to our nation.

We can all recall incredible Aussie films that really made an impact on us. For me it was kids shows like The Henderson Kidsand films like Wake in Fright, and families today would be absolutely lost without programs like Bluey bringing joy and laughter into their homes. They tell our story and showcase our national identity to the world, so it's really fantastic and exciting that Minister Burke has introduced our line in the sand for Australian content on streaming channels. This will mean that we will continue to see our stories being told on the big screen and the little screen. Some of those will now be made in the new Perth Film Studios, in my electorate of Hasluck, out near Whiteman Park.

Last month, I joined Minister Catherine King to turn the first sod on the Brabham District Community Centre. This is a project right in the heart of Hasluck's fast-growing north-east corridor. Our government's investment of $3.8 million, through the Thriving Suburbs Program, will ensure this centre becomes a vital hub for local families, services and community groups for many years to come. This is a project that reflects the spirit of Brabham: inclusive, energetic and future focused. I look forward to returning to celebrate the countless community events, birthday parties and major milestones that will bring this centre to life and strengthen the connections that we have across Hasluck.

Just prior to flying to Canberra for this sitting, I attended the launch event for Entwined in the Swan Valley. I've had some major FOMO while being FIFO between Canberra and my electorate of Hasluck. Every year, in the spring, the valley welcomes visitors from near and far to experience an extraordinary array of events, culture, food, wine, beer and spirits. The event runs until 16 November, so, thankfully, I'll return just in time to be able to enjoy celebrating Italian culture in the valley and squeeze in a few more events before the festival concludes.

While we're talking about the Swan Valley, I need to share the ongoing success of Sandalford Wines in Caversham. Sandalford was recently awarded recognition for its cuisine, service, wine and overall hospitality, winning four categories at the 2025 Gold Plate Awards. The member for Hunter bangs on about wine a lot in this place, but I'm here to tell him, and all members representing grapes anywhere in the country, that the Swan Valley is absolutely a place that is hard to beat.

Recently I was in Midland, celebrating the annual Pasifika Festival, organised by Cook Islands Community WA. It was an extraordinary day of language, dance, food and music. It's an example of the extraordinary and diverse abilities, talent and willingness of people to volunteer to bring so much to our community. I congratulate all of the families, organisers and volunteers for making it such an extraordinary success.

As we get closer to the end of the year, that summertime feeling descends upon the Mornington Peninsula with, at first, delicate discomfort about our roads and traffic, which, by 27 December, becomes abject panic.

But this year has been made so much worse by inaction and incompetence from the Victorian state Labor government. Let us start with the Peninsula Link debacle. A planned closure for major works meant that all southbound lanes of Peninsula Link towards Rosebud were closed between Bungower Road and the Moorooduc Highway from 28 September to a scheduled 29 October. Whilst this led to a huge bank-up of traffic on the old roads heading south, we endured, counting down the days until 29 October, only to find that, when we reached the unofficial launch date of the holiday season—that is, the cup day long weekend—the road was still shut down.

As I drove up to the city on Sunday to get my flight to Canberra, I saw kilometres of traffic banked up all the way heading southward. On Monday, I wasn't surprised to receive tens of emails from local businesses, reporting both mad and missing visitors on one of the most important business weekends of the year. The closure has been extended for another two weeks until 15 November, running perilously close to the next bumper business season on the southern Mornington Peninsula—schoolies week.

This is the Victorian Labor playbook in action: delays, mismanagement and wrong priorities. Rather than upgrading the crumbling local roads that people use every single day, Labor was busy resurfacing one of the better roads on the peninsula, and shutting it down completely to do so for weeks. Ask locals and they'll tell you the real problem isn't the smoothness of the Peninsula Link. It's the potholes that make local driving dangerous, breaking axles and punching punctures in people's tyres. This has largely resulted from the state government's 93 per cent reduction in patching works and a 14 per cent reduction in road resealing and rehabilitation budgets.

But nowhere is Labor's neglect more deadly than at the intersection of the Nepean Highway and Uralla Road in Mount Martha. This single intersection has seen over 30 serious accidents since 2012. Eighteen thousand vehicles travel along the Nepean Highway in Mount Martha every single day. The coalition committed to fixing this intersection back in 2019, and, six years later, drivers entering or exiting Uralla Road are still taking their lives into their own hands. After years of persistent advocacy by me and, indeed, my predecessor, the nearby Forest Drive intersection finally got its upgrade—again, funded by the federal coalition. The contrast makes the inaction on Uralla Road even more idiotic—indeed, callous. How many more accidents will it take before the Labor government actually delivers? Every time the government delays, the risk persists.

And it's not just the highways. In Moorooduc, parents are living through a traffic management nightmare right outside the local primary school. A local parent, Cass, told me there are four separate roadwork projects, all taking place simultaneously, within a few hundred metres of the school, and the result is gridlock in a 40 kilometre zone. Parents are late to pick up their kids, drivers are becoming aggressive, and there have been multiple near misses and several minor collisions. Local police are now stationed at the site during pick-up times—not for speeding, but just to stop traffic chaos from breaking out. That's not policing; it's babysitting the government's horror mismanagement.

To top it off, our council recently flagged an intention to lower speed limits along Point Nepean Road between Dromana and Rye to between 40 and 50 kilometres an hour. We learnt this week, of course, that lowering speed limits is one of Labor's mad ideas to limit carbon emissions, according to the department of infrastructure's own consultation. But this proposed change will add many wasted minutes to the daily commute up and down the peninsula.

Residents are right to be frustrated—indeed, furious. The southern Mornington Peninsula is now like a battle of Galaga, with ever-changing speed limits, potholes, narrow and dangerous bike lanes, and constant roadworks. Labor's answer is always the bandaid solution of slowing everybody down. If the roads are unsafe, fix the roads. Don't penalise drivers who are trying to get to work or school or the shops on roads that have been neglected for years.

The pattern is clear. Under Victorian Labor, the Mornington Peninsula's roads are getting worse, not better. The Allan Labor government likes to boast about record infrastructure spending but, if you drive down the roads in my area, you'll be forgiven for asking, 'Where has that money gone?' because, on the ground, it sure doesn't look like it's being spent at home.

The people of the peninsula deserve better. We deserve a government that understands that road safety isn't a slogan; it's about safe intersections, well-timed works and well-maintained roads. But, right now, every single driver on the Mornington Peninsula can see the same thing: Labor has lost sight of the basics, and it's a disgrace.

I rise today to speak on a really important bill that was recently passed in this parliament in memory of little Baby Priya. Heartbreakingly, Baby Priya lived to just 42 days old. Instead of having the freedom to grieve her baby's death during this difficult time, Priya's mum faced distressing negotiations with her employer about a return to work she hadn't planned for.

I don't have firsthand experience of childbirth and losing a baby at the same time, but I do know grief. Grief can be overwhelming, paralysing and raw. Some days, it is truly debilitating. For pregnancies that reach 20 weeks, one in every 135 will end in stillbirth. Baby Priya's bill introduces a new principle into the Fair Work Act to protect families during the most difficult time of their lives. This bill means that, unless employers and employees have expressly agreed otherwise, employer funded paid parental leave cannot be cancelled if a child is stillborn or passes away.

This is for the six babies who are stillborn in Australia every day and the more than 2,000 families each year who face this loss and heartbreak. It means parents can rely on their paid parental leave entitlements regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy or birth. This bill is about dignity, it's about compassion and, from a legislative perspective, it's about defining a grey area of the law and giving families financial security at a time when they need it most, because, even if a person experiencing the loss of a child does have supportive employers, those employers do not have a defined category of leave to give them. It's not bereavement leave. It's not annual leave. What do you call it? This bill provides clarity for parents, employers and the whole workplace. It sets out shared expectations so that these moments can be handled with dignity and compassion. It leads to mutually beneficial conditions for both employers and employees, and it builds trust and dialogue in workplaces.

The clarity this bill provides aligns with the clarity provided in existing unpaid parental leave entitlements, ensuring consistency across the workplace relations framework. Importantly, it doesn't interfere with bargaining in good-faith agreements. This means that the ability to bargain for pay and conditions above the safety net remains central to our approach to workplace relations.

When we define and protect this paid parental leave, we're recognising the experience of those families instead of erasing it. Going through pregnancy and childbirth and adjusting to new life with a baby is challenging. It's transformative and, for most families, it's joyous. But to go through that experience with loss instead of new life, with grief instead of joy, and to be forced to an immediate return to work is horrific. Friends of mine have gone through this experience. Colleagues of mine have spoken in this chamber about people in their communities that have gone through this experience. You'd think this bill would have received unequivocal support from every member of this house, because the horrors that Baby Priya's family went through—those horrors that I saw my friends go through—are not something I would wish upon any Australian.

A few weeks ago, I was speaking to one of my best friends—a wonderful doctor who works on maternity wards in Melbourne hospitals—about the legislation. As she was speaking, her eyes teared up, and she said: 'I look after patients who lose their babies. There's so much that we try to do to provide care to them and to try to help them in that moment. It shocked me that, after everything they go through, after all the care we provide, a workplace would actually expect them to go back to work within a few days of going through that. It's just awful.'

Instead of unequivocal support, this House and the Australian public have been subjected to some truly sickening comments from those opposite. Those opposite just don't get it. They don't get that for a parent to be told by their employer, 'No, you do not have the time and space to grieve,' or for a woman to be trapped without the opportunity to physically recover from a traumatic childbirth is abhorrent. The lack of compassion and empathy that has been shown by these members is astounding. Their comments are unworthy of this place and unworthy of the people they represent. But we won't let their comments take away from this moment.

This is a proud moment. It's a moment to recognise that the Labor Party is doing really good things in people's lives right across Australia—for women and families in their most vulnerable moments. This piece of legislation will affect so many Australians' lives for the better.

I thank the volunteers of the Maryborough Military Aviation Museum Association, led by Jenny Elliott, who are preserving Maryborough's wartime history. Founded in 2016, the association showcases Maryborough Airport's history as an RAAF air station and highlights the important role of the service men and women who were based there during World War II. Between 1941 and 1944, thousands of wireless air gunners, navigators and members of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force were stationed in Maryborough for training before their deployment. Destined to become crew members for Bomber Command, the air gunners were trained to send and receive Morse code messages and operate machine guns in a wide variety of aircraft. The RAAF station at Maryborough Airport closed after the war, but, through the efforts of the Maryborough Military Aviation Museum Association, this vital part of the heritage city's history is being preserved, and I'm always keen to support them. This Saturday, the museum is holding a special commemorative service to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and to reflect on Maryborough's contribution to Australia's national security during the war. I wish them all the very best for their event.

On Tuesday, at 11 am on the 11th day of the 11th month, we pause to remember the two million men and women who have served in the defence of our nation, particularly the 102,000 Australians who have made the ultimate sacrifice since 1914, giving their lives for the freedom we enjoy today. On Remembrance Day, we honour those who have served, as it is through their bravery and courage that Australia is safe and secure. For many veterans and their families, Remembrance Day can be a difficult time, and I acknowledge the work of ex-service organisations that support and advocate on behalf of veterans and their families. This Remembrance Day marks the 107th anniversary of the armistice which ended the First World War, during which more than 300,000 Australians served overseas and more than 60,000 people lost their lives. This year is also the 110th anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign, the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the 75th anniversary of Australia's service in Korea and Malaya. We honour the brave service and sacrifice of Australian Defence Force personnel. Lest we forget.

The Maryborough Military and Colonial Museum is a remarkable place that preserves the legacy and stories of service personnel who have served our country since the Boer War. The museum has arguably the richest collection of wartime memorabilia outside the national War Memorial and attracts local, national and international visitors, who come to see the magnificent displays of medals, uniforms, models, artwork, letters and mementos that paint a picture of the service and sacrifice of those who have fought to give us our freedom and security. The museum was established by the late John Wallace Meyers and his wife, Else, who purchased the historic Wharf Street building in 2004 and used their private military collection as a basis for the museum. John sadly passed away in 2022, but more than 100 volunteers work to continue his legacy, using their time and skills to educate visitors about Maryborough's colonial and military history. I worked with the museum to secure a $700,000 grant from the former coalition government to help the museum grow, to make their vast collection of memorabilia and national heritage items accessible to more people and to continue to showcase Maryborough's rich military history.

Over the last few days, there has been a lot of discussion and divisions around the environmental protection reforms—a busy day today!—but it's clear from today that these historic reforms are at risk of being blocked by the Greens political party and the LNP. I absolutely don't want to see this happen, and neither does my community of Brisbane. We really are at a pivotal moment in time when we can do something very special—protect our environment while enabling our communities to flourish with affordable housing, renewable energy and infrastructure. In the words of David Attenborough: 'The truth is the natural world is changing. And we are totally dependent on that world. It provides our food, water and air. It is the most precious thing we have, and we need to defend it.' It's also true that our environment and economy are intrinsically linked. Agriculture, resources and our tourism sector all rely on a healthy natural environment.

In July last year, the Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions at ANU reported a few things. One, our continent has warmed almost 1½ degrees. Our rainfall patterns have changed, and we are experiencing more frequent periods of extreme weather, such as droughts, bushfires and flooding. Our land surface has been significantly modified, and at least 19 ecosystems are collapsing due to climate change and other pressures. I know, with some despair, that it's not possible to reverse this decline; however, I do believe we really are at a turning point. We can't deny the science, but we can build a coalition across the community to help solve the problems and keep the lights on. Government, business and environmental groups must continue to work together to protect our environment and enable the economic benefits of sustainable development.

With the introduction of Labor's environmental reform bills, we have the opportunity now to take real action to protect, conserve and restore our important environmental areas and species. That's why this term the Labor government has really prioritised a number of things: reforming these laws to make them fit for purpose while also taking real action on climate change and protecting the environment, and protecting and conserving 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our marine areas by 2030. This is backed by significant investment, a $200 million investment to help meet the 30 by 30 targets, in addition to $232-and-a-bit million for the Indigenous Protected Areas program and $25 million to protect critical biodiversity areas. Our ambitious plan to stop species extinction is directly supported by another half a billion plus to support the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities. This investment really will help rebuild some of our most vulnerable species and prevent further extinction. We also went to the last election committing to 40 diverse local projects, which will be delivered through local conservation groups, Landcare et cetera.

I stand here today really proud of Labor's environmental record. Labor is the party that has delivered every single major environmental reform in Australia's history: Landcare, saving the Franklin, protecting Daintree and Kakadu and building the largest network of marine parks in the world, in addition to addressing the threat of climate change. And, if we really think about it, the list of climate and environmental reform since the election of the Albanese Labor government in 2022 has shifted the conversation on how Australia can be a good global citizen and play its part.

To pass these laws, Labor needs the support of those opposite and in the Senate. The last time we tried to create a federal EPA, the Greens political party and the coalition blocked it in the Senate. We thought that was bad enough then, but let's fast forward now to November 2025, and the introduction of the EPA is again at risk because of the coalition and the Greens political party. They're incapable of putting self-interest aside and working with the government to introduce much-needed reforms. The coalition appears to be completely bereft when it comes to clearly articulating what their environmental policy is, so it's no wonder we're where we are, and the Greens political party voted against the bill in the House this morning, which is mind-boggling given their background. It's time to help support this bill. The people of Brisbane and those around Australia voted for environmental reforms. This bill is fair and balanced. It protects our environment and ensures net positive outcomes. I urge the opposition and the crossbench to be on the right side of history here and support it.

House adjourned at 17 : 00

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Boyce ) took the chair at 09:29.

I am regularly contacted by constituents who tell me that their aged-care funds have been consumed by administrative fees at the expense of their care. And now, adding to the pain in the lead-up to the new Aged Care Act commencing on 1 November, there are reports of even further price hikes under the Support at Home program.

So let me share just one report, about Rosalie, who lives with Parkinson's disease, arthritis and other serious health conditions. Now, Rosalie had negotiated with her aged-care provider to retain two longstanding, trusted support workers by self-managing some package funding. However, as the Support at Home program neared, Rosalie was asked by her provider to sign a new contract. She was aghast to discover that she would now be charged an additional 10 per cent for essential items and, even more distressingly, a 100 per cent increase to retain her two trusted support workers. When Rosalie questioned the soaring costs, her provider explained that, due to new compliance and administrative obligations, they'd restructured their fees to remain operational. So, to this end, the provider introduced what they call an 'internal service price', which is a fee applied regardless of who provides the support. As a result, Rosalie has gone from paying $55 per hour for trusted supports to $110.

But it doesn't stop there, because Rosalie's story gets even worse. She had planned a trip to visit her terminally ill daughter before Christmas. Rosalie understood her provider had accepted the $3,000 quote for a support person to accompany her. But, to Rosalie's dismay, that quote was revoked and—surprise, surprise—when a new quote was forthcoming, the fee had nearly doubled. The explanation given by the provider was that the increased cost offsets losses under the new program and that offering a reduced rate when their financial position was untested under the Support at Home program was a business risk.

Aged-care providers shouldn't be balancing their books off the backs of vulnerable older Australians who are stretching every dollar to remain at home, independent and safe. Frankly, it's outrageous that funding intended for essential services, such as cleaning, transport and allied health, is being swallowed up by administration. Clearly, the government need to address this, and address it urgently, just as they also need to continue their work to ensure that the residential aged-care sector is put on a sustainable footing. Just yesterday, in my electorate, Southern Cross Care announced they are closing one of their facilities, leaving some 70 people to find new homes and 130 staff to find new work. There is obviously still much to be done.

It's always heartening to hear about excellence in innovation in our schools. In Shortland, I'm proud to say, we have some of the best.

Hunter Sports High in Gateshead made history a few months ago after being named government secondary school of the year, and overall—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 09:32 to 09:44

As I was saying, it's always heartening to hear about excellence and innovation in our schools, and in Shortland I'm proud to say we have some of the best. Hunter Sports High School in Gateshead made history a few months ago after being named government secondary school of the year and overall Australian school of the year in the Australian Education Awards. Not only is this an amazing achievement; it is the second year in a row it's won both categories. Just think about that—it's the second year in a row that it has been the best school in Australia. To be awarded Australian school of the year once is a big deal, but to be awarded it back to back is phenomenal.

I'd like to recognise and congratulate Principal Rachel Byrne, her staff, students and the wonderful community for cementing Hunter Sports High as a prime example of excellence in public education. It is setting the standard for education right across the country. These awards truly reflect the passion, expertise and commitment of the entire school community in providing an outstanding learning environment.

Hunter Sports High prides itself on inspiring a love of lifelong learning in its 950 students from years 7 to 12. It delivers a learning environment that balances academic excellence and sporting achievement. Twenty-two per cent of its students identify as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, ensuring rich cultural experiences are part of the diverse fabric of the school community. Especially, as the school represents a region that includes Windale and Gateshead and other communities like that, this is a phenomenal achievement of which I am so proud.

Just five minutes away is Mount Hutton Public School, a K-6 primary school with around 170 students, of which 23 per cent identify as First Nations. Around 40 per cent of the cohort have at least one disability, often more. This is a school that is leading the way on how to embed the explicit instruction teaching model. This approach helps students process new information more effectively to prevent cognitive overload.

The successes being enjoyed by the leadership team at Mount Hutton Public School have been recognised by the Australian Education Research Organisation and feature in a new video on the AERO website. With its teachers using a consistent and collaborative approach to teaching, Mount Hutton has seen positive changes throughout the school. There's no doubt that improving teaching practices and boosting teachers' confidence in their methods improves student outcomes.

I couldn't be prouder of these two schools in my electorate. They are leading the way in delivering high-quality, best-practice education, and I am so proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government that is delivering, for the first time, full and fair funding for public schools right across Australia, including for those on our home turf in Shortland.

Recently, my dear friend, Senator Glenn Sterle, and I undertook a delegation to the United Nations, where both of us were very keen to understand how we could explain to our constituents why the UN matters to them directly.

There was a time when the UN's purpose was very clear. Following the Second World War, the decolonisation of Africa and maintaining peace in Europe was their No. 1 focus. Having spoken with so many people at the UN, it was very clear that their focus is now towards reform of the UN itself. That is an important reform to be done.

One of the observations I'd bring back—and it's important for us to understand—is that the structure of the UN is largely the same as it was in the 1950s. For anyone who has worked in management consulting or seen restructures in recent years—goodness me, in my 20 years of engineering, the changes that have occurred have been significant in that period.

A division has been called in the House and proceedings are suspended to enable honourable members to attend the division.

Sitting suspended from 09:48 to 10:36

There are some key points I want to bring back from my time there. Firstly, we are clearly at the point of divergence in our approach to significant issues at the UN with our American cousins. During my time there, there were some key issues that came up—obviously, the recognition of Palestine. A second one that was important was played out quite strongly in the media: during Climate Week, as we laid out our targets for 2035, Mr Trump was leading a negotiation with the Turkish government for the sale of LNG. I am not suggesting we should be in alignment fully with the US; we should be doing what is right for us. But we are clearly at a point of divergence.

The second point is there's a real strain on multilateralism. If we look at the growing use of government-to-government agreements in the place where multilateralism may have taken place previously—free trade agreements, the QUAD, AUKUS and even the US government dealing directly with particular companies—this is a significant change.

The third one was to note the role of the UN in significant conflicts around the world. If you think about the two major ones we've seen in recent times—Ukraine and what's happening in Gaza—and compare the role of the UN in those conflicts to the role of the UN in the second Gulf War, clearly there is a very big change there. We're back to something similar to a spheres of influence model, where superpowers divide up the world again, and I think the UN is not quite prepared for that.

I have held off on this final point but I made it at the time: speaking to every single US politician, think tank industry member over there, it was very clear the critical minerals deal would not have been done without the work of Ambassador Rudd. It's important to acknowledge that. He led that conversation in the US, it is acknowledged widely. The deal is very good for Australia. In the conversation we had with Mr Rudd, it was very clearly pointed out that critical minerals only make up six per cent of our resources industry. We need to protect the 94 per cent, and that is the next stage of the conversation he wants to have with the US. I think it is an important conversation for us to follow up and to support team Australia in that position.

I rise to commend the outstanding work of Carevan Blacktown, a volunteer organisation serving our community in Lalor Park. Each week, Carevan provides a free communal meal and support services to people experiencing hardship, whether due to homelessness, financial stress or social isolation. The volunteers offer more than just food; they offer dignity, compassion and connection. Carevan generously provides hygiene items, clothing and takeaway meals, helping to meet the immediate needs of the community while fostering a sense of belonging. As we approach Christmas their work becomes even more vital. I thank Carvan Blacktown and its dedicated volunteers for their unwavering commitment to uplifting lives and strengthening the social fabric of our electorate.

Every Australian child, no matter where they live or their circumstances, deserves the best school experience possible. I recently had the privilege of joining representatives from the PCYC and New South Wales Police to officially open the new sensory garden and playground at Casuarina School in Riverstone, a specialist school that provides intensive educational and behavioural support for students who need it most. Each week the PCYC supports students to take part in sports and social activities with local police officers, helping to build trust, confidence and positive relationships between young people and law enforcement. They are exactly the kinds of initiatives that make a real difference, helping to set young people on a path towards opportunity and success. This new play area, made possible by $600,000 in funding from the Albanese government, will be utilised by students for this program—allowing them to learn, play and engage with police in the best environment possible.

In Rouse Hill families are leading the way in embracing clean energy solutions. I recently met Kenny, a local resident, who, since installing a home battery under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, has seen his monthly power bill drop from $240 to just $10. This is part of a broader story across Greenway, where about 1,000 households have taken up the program—saving up to $2,300 a year on their power bills. This isn't a story of the inner city; it's a story of the outer suburbs and the regions leading the way on cheaper, cleaner energy. It is suburbs in north-west Sydney such as Rouse Hill, Box Hill, Gables, Kellyville Ridge, Riverstone and Grantham Farm—not Bondi or Bellevue Hill—that are leading the state when it comes to battery uptake. These batteries reduce power bills and cut emissions, and I'm so proud that our community of Greenway is leading the way.

While gas corporations get our gas for next to nothing, make billions exporting it and pay no tax, it is frankly disgraceful for kids at our public schools to get anything other than world-standard education. But that's what Labor and the Liberals want you to accept. For years they've let massive corporations pay no tax while chronically underfunding our public schooling system. Well, Queensland teachers are not accepting it. They've just voted against a pathetically weak enterprise bargaining offer from the Queensland state government. They're fighting for a better deal for all our kids.

Our amazing teachers are doing incredible jobs, but they're hamstrung. They're massively overworked, working weekends and on holidays to prep their classes and do marking and burdensome admin. Class sizes are way too big, too many schools are overcrowded and teachers are having to use their own money to pay for basics like stationery. There's next to no support for classes with kids with behavioural issues or for teachers experiencing workplace violence. On top of all this, teachers are not being paid enough for the work they do. So no wonder there's a teacher shortage. No wonder there's major teacher burnout—solidarity to the teachers who just aren't settling for substandard deals.

Sixty-seven per cent of teachers in the Queensland Teachers' Union just voted no to the state government's recent best and final offer. These teachers want a real pay rise—above inflation—but, more than that, they want real change in their industry. These teachers know that there's no shortcut to educating the next generation. There's no AI bandaid. There's no standardised testing system that will deliver better results. There's no little rule change to fix behavioural issues. There's no shortcut. But that's exactly what the major parties always look for, because they don't want to tax huge corporations like the gas multinationals.

Raising the next generation of people to become wonderful, flourishing individuals and community members takes actually investing in what matters: better conditions and pay for teachers, including reducing after-hours work to a minimum; smaller class sizes—Finland has an average class size of 19 while our teachers struggle trying to educate 30 kids at a time; free breakfast-and-lunch programs at all schools, so no kid tries to learn on an empty stomach; and dignified, readily available public housing for everyone who needs it, so every kid has a secure place to call home. The only reason Labor and the Liberals don't do this is that they think multinational gas corporations are more important than our teachers and more important than our kids.

I rise today in the Australian parliament to advocate for the recognition of Australia's Tamil community, one of the fastest growing and most dynamic communities in our country. One year ago, in parliament, I called for January to be declared Tamil heritage month across Australia, to coincide with the significant harvest festival, Thai Pongal. As I said this time last year, Tamil heritage month is an opportunity to celebrate Australia's rich multicultural tapestry, honour Tamil contributions and ensure the ongoing vibrancy of one of the world's oldest living cultures.

Tamil Australians are highly educated and entrepreneurial and make significant contributions across industries such as health, engineering, IT, education and small business. But it's about more than economics; it's about nation building. It's about fostering a sense of belonging and giving Tamil Australians the confidence to fully participate in Australia's democratic and social life.

My electorate of Parramatta is one of the most culturally diverse electorates in the country, with 55 per cent of residents born overseas. It's also home to one of the largest Tamil-speaking communities in Australia. As this population grows, we have a responsibility to support the community and help preserve this ancient culture. That's why I've always advocated for greater support for the spaces and institutions that allow this vibrant culture to thrive. That's why, this year, the Albanese government made the commitment to deliver $7 million in federal funding towards a new cultural hall at the Mays Hill Murugan temple.

The Sydney Murugan Temple holds deep significance for Tamil Hindus but also for the broader Hindu community in Australia. The new cultural hall will include a 800-seat function hall and a 600-seat dining area, as well as foyers, learning rooms, a library and meeting rooms. Our government's $7 million commitment to this hall reflects our recognition of the temple's significance, not only as a place of worship but as a vital centre of common community connection. It's a space for language classes, senior social groups, youth education and cultural preservation, and it provides an opportunity to pass down Tamil music, dance, literature and art to younger generations.

I'm proud to say that work has begun. In August I had the honour of joining community leaders and families for the sod-turning for the cultural hall. This project, which has been many years in the making, is one that will become a cornerstone of Tamil cultural life in our community. But this is only one step towards supporting the community, and our work is ongoing. I want to wish everybody a happy Tamil Heritage Month.

The Australian dream was always a promise. It was a promise that if you worked hard you could own your home, raise a family and build a better future. That promise is fading for young Australians. A home represents security and belonging, a stake in the country and a patch of ground on which to build a life with those you love. It's the cornerstone of stability, community and aspiration in this country. It's what generations have saved and worked for over many years. Today that dream is further out of reach than ever before.

Under this Labor government, the path to homeownership has become steeper and narrower, and for many Australians it feels completely out of reach. Many Australians under 30 believe they will never be able to afford a home in this country. There used to be a ladder for young Australians to climb, but now they feel like that ladder has been kicked out and there's no actual—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:48 to 11 : 07

There used to be a ladder for young Australians to climb. But now many feel that the ladder has been kicked out and that there is no way to rise, particularly when it comes to buying a home. In WA, house prices have surged 8.4 per cent in the last year alone. Across my electorate of Canning, the prices have skyrocketed. Serpentine Jarrahdale has seen a spike of 11.3 per cent. In Silver Sands, there has been an increase of 29 per cent in just the last 12 months. It's unsustainable. And, with Labor at the helm, it's only going to get worse. It's expected that Perth prices will jump by another $85,000 in 2026. These price jumps and future price projections crush the hopes of young Australians looking for a home.

While house prices and rents soar, wages remain stagnant. Young Australians are being pushed out of the market fast, and the gap between what people earn and what homes cost is growing wider every single day. The median multiple, the mean salary to mean housing price, should be pegged at 1.3. That's traditionally what's been considered affordable. In most metropolitan markets across the country, it's around one to 10. Completely unaffordable for young Australians.

What is driving this? Well, there's a couple of factors, but net overseas migration is out of control under the Labor government, and Australians are finding it harder and harder to get into property. Labor talks about affordability but refuses to address the root cause. It's demand, which is massively outstripping supply, and they're fuelling it. Over the last few years, 1.2 million people have been added to our population, and only 500,000 dwellings have been built to support it. It's very simple, and we cannot continue on this path.

Homeownership is fundamental to ensuring young Australians have a meaningful place, an investment in the future of our country. A home means roots, it means stability, it means community and it's the heart of family formation. Our fertility replacement rate is 1.5, and we need to get it up.

In my community, the pain is real. People are feeling Labor's failure acutely. I'll keep fighting for them and talking about this issue in this House.

Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge your great work on the Speaker's panel so far.

Very kind.

Regardless of your income, your postcode or your circumstances, you should be able to see a doctor when you need it. Labor is making this a reality with the largest-ever investment into Medicare. When we came to government, Australians were facing the toughest health system pressures in decades. Too many families were being forced to choose between paying for groceries and paying to see a doctor. Our latest and largest Medicare investment is supporting doctors in the community to treat their patients for free.

The Deception Bay doctors are the latest to become fully bulk-billed. They join many other 100 per cent bulk-billed practices in my community—Our Medical Home North Lakes, Woody Point Medical Centre, Clontarf Bridge Medical Centre, Best Health Medical Centre, Medical Zone Family Practice, Griffin Medical Centre and Deception Bay Family Medical Centre. These wonderful clinics are dedicated to providing affordable health care for their patients. But I know we need more. Our government is committed to making nine out of 10 GP visits bulk-billed by 2030. Our Medicare urgent care clinics are taking the pressure off hospitals and emergency departments. The clinic at Murrumba Downs has just reached 26,000 visits. Each one of those visits was 100 per cent free.

We are also delivering on mental health, with 50 Medicare mental health facilities now open across the country. The Redcliffe Medicare Mental Health Centre is officially open and delivering locals free, confidential, walk-in mental health support. The Staying Deadly headspace will be opening its doors December this year. This will be the first headspace service in Australia designed by First Nations people for First Nations people, their families and their friends. Operated by the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health, the centre will offer culturally appropriate, community led support. I thank the assistant minister, Emma McBride, for her work on getting this essential facility into my community.

Medicare is one of the proudest achievements in our nation's history. It's a Labor legacy that we are working hard to strengthen. Labor built Medicare, and Labor are strengthening Medicare. We are doing the work, but we can't do it alone. To meet the needs of our growing community, we need the Queensland state government to get on with the Redcliffe Hospital expansion. This project was well underway under the previous Queensland government. The groundwork was done, the plans were in motion and the community was ready. But now the site sits idle. The work has stalled, and my community is crying out for progress. It has been paused for so long that the pilings are weathering in the sun and the rain. If we wait much longer, we risk having to redo the groundwork altogether, wasting time and taxpayer money. Every day this project is delayed our doctors, nurses and patients are forced to make do in a hospital that's already stretched beyond its limits. Redcliffe deserves better. The delays must stop. So I'm calling on the Queensland government to restart the work. Pick up the tools. Let's finish the job.

I rise today to try to cut through some of the froth and bubble of the genuine excitement around Australia's critical minerals industry because, as the member for Forrest and a proud Western Australian, I'm acutely aware that a vast amount of our nation's critical minerals wealth actually sits below WA soil. Of course, the constitutional reality is clear. Those resources are vested in the Crown through the rights of Western Australia in trust for its people. That opportunity must be realised if we are to assert our sovereignty in a new and changing world.

I set aside some of the concern that people might have around the government's proposed critical minerals strategic reserve, which involves stockpiling, offtake agreements and other measures. There is a real perception that it makes the government a market player. The reason I set that aside is that the rare earths and critical minerals market is not a free market. The reality is that China absolutely monopolises the global market, with more than 90 per cent of the market share and a clear willingness to manipulate prices to their advantage. We can't have our heads in the sand and pretend that this is a free market in which everyone upholds the rules based order. Whilst there is the risk wherever government sticks its fingers into these things of undermining private enterprise and wasting taxpayer money, and success through resources has typically come from the simple principles that states regulate, private industry operates and markets decide, I actually agree with the government that that can't be the case here.

However, the reality, in my view, is that the government can't pick winners, and so the clear opportunity is rather to invest in research and development that will enable the industry to flourish here in Australia. Processing rare earths is technologically complex and, importantly, its also energy intense. So none of our collective ambition for critical minerals can succeed in this country unless we have affordable and reliable energy. Downstream processing and the transformation of these products into high-value products is dependent on our ability to have internationally competitive power costs.

If power costs remain high and supply unreliable, the reality is these projects will stall and remain commercially unviable. Our minerals will remain under the ground, unexploited and the opportunity goes begging, whilst other nations seize the opportunity and undermine our sovereignty. High energy costs are already a significant burden on the industry, and we've seen job losses in Western Australia already, with some 3,400 workers collectively laid off and their families impacted in the last year alone.

Last week my community and the cricket community across the country learnt of the devastating news of a tragic accident that occurred at a cricket training session in Ferntree Gully. This heartbreaking incident led to the death of 17-year-old Ben Austin. Ben was an adored son to Jace and Tracey, a deeply loved brother to Cooper and Zach, and a shining light in the lives of his family, friends and all who had the privilege of knowing him.

Young Ben loved his sport more than anything. He was an active and much loved member of the Ferntree Gully Cricket Club, the Mulgrave Cricket Club and the Eildon Park Cricket Club. Ben also represented his region with pride, captaining the Ferntree Gully and District Cricket Association to a premiership. Ben was an extremely talented bowler and batter, respected by team mates, coaches and opponents alike. His love for the game was matched only by his humility, leadership and kindness.

In March this year, Ben received the Brian Wright Trophy, an award given to the junior player who shows the correct attitude and dedication to the game. It was a fitting recognition of the character and commitment that defined him both on and off the field.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:16 to 11:26

In the days following this tragedy, the Ferntree Gully community and the wider cricket family united in an extraordinary demonstration of compassion and strength. Last Saturday morning, I visited Wally Tew Reserve in Ferntree Gully, where I laid some flowers and placed a small cricket bat with a message alongside the incredible array of tributes already there. I also spoke with Lee Thompson, Ferntree Gully Cricket Club president, and asked that he please send my sincere condolences to Ben's family and also to his teammate, who must be hurting terribly as well.

What began as unimaginable heartbreak quickly revealed the depth of kindness and solidarity that exists within our community. Clubs across the region came together to honour Ben's memory. Players wore black armbands, held moments of silence before matches and gathered to support one another both on and off the field. Social media became a space of warmth and remembrance filled with stories celebrating Ben's sportsmanship, humour and generous spirit. A campaign called #batsoutforben went viral, with people from every corner of the cricketing world placing bats on their doorsteps as a symbol of respect.

Through this tragedy, our community's compassion has shone brighter than ever. The response reflects not only the love people had for Ben but also the enduring strength of a community that stands shoulder to shoulder in times of grief—a community bound by empathy, respect and the kindest of hearts. Rest in peace, Ben.

The coalition associates itself with the kind remarks of the member for Aston upon the death of Ben and sends our best wishes to his family as well.

The Great War was meant to be the war to end all wars. Across the world, somewhere between 15 and 22 million people were killed. Of those, 9½ million were service personnel. Six million Allied service personnel died during the Great War and, tragically for our own great nation of Australia, there were 60,000 fatalities. Many more returned home carrying the battle scars and the mental health impacts for the rest of their lives.

But on 11 November at 11 am in 1918, the guns fell silent on the Western Front. Each year, our nation stops on 11 November. We observe a minute's silence out of respect and in solemn commemoration of those who lost their lives. It was originally known as Armistice Day, but became known as Remembrance Day after World War II to respect all who have died in conflicts. Throughout our nation's short history, 102,000 service men and women have died defending the freedoms that we all enjoy here today. On Remembrance Day, we will remember them.

I often tell school children when they visit Parliament House that our most important building in Canberra is actually the Australian War Memorial. I'm very proud to have been part of a government which delivered $500 million for the redevelopment of the War Memorial. It is a legacy from the coalition government that will allow us to tell the stories of more modern conflicts and peacekeeping missions at a time when those veterans and their families are still able to appreciate it. What's concerning me, though, right now is that the Albanese government has actually failed to announce new members of the Australian War Memorial governing body and veterans are increasingly nervous about why these delays are in place. Now is not the time for a half-strength governing body at our most important national institution where we respect, recognise and commemorate our service men and women.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:30 to 11:38

With major development work underway and sensitive issues to be resolved, veterans want to know that the War Memorial will be governed by a balanced and respectful council. The Australian War Memorial Council members whose time expired in September included highly regarded veterans like Dan Keighran VC and Sharon Bown, former RSL national president Greg Melick and political leaders Tony Abbott and Kim Beazley.

We need to know that we will have a well-balanced Australian War Memorial Council with the skills, experience and wisdom to make sensible decisions, in a bipartisan way, which are in the national interest. I've written to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to seek an explanation for the delays and to offer my personal input into ensuring appointments to the council are non-controversial. The Australian War Memorial Council is not a place for activists or for rewarding political mates with no particular interest in defence or the veteran community.

My electorate of Sturt is home to a thriving Italian community, and the Sicilia Social and Sports Club on OG Road at Klemzig is one of the heartbeats. Just a week ago, the Sicilia club celebrated its 50th birthday with a very big party. Excellent food, good wine, a beautifully decorated room and a rocking dance floor with sharply dressed dancers are what you'd expect at a big celebration, and this is definitely what the Sicilia club delivered. But it also delivered a valuable lesson in history and culture and in what the benefits of a strong community can bring. The club's president for the past 18 years, Rita Bianca Palumbo, spoke proudly of the Sicilian region and the Sicilian ethos and traditions that the club that has lovingly maintained for 50 years.

The club's colours are red and yellow, the colours of the Sicilian flag, and its logo is the trinacria, which has Greek heritage but represents the island of Sicily. The Medusa head represents the power of the sea and protection by the Greek goddess Athena, the stalks of wheat represent the fertility of the land of Sicily, and the three legs represent the three capes or ports at each extremity of the triangular shaped island that is Sicily.

The idea for the club was born between two of the original members, who had immigrated to Australia from Sicily and who wanted to socialise with other Sicilian migrants. The club began in people's houses but, as numbers grew, bigger facilities were required, and the club's first external premises were developed at Camden Park. The present-day facility at Klemzig has been the club's permanent home since 1992.

The club's original motivations of holding onto and passing on the culture, values and traditions that the Sicilian immigrants brought with them and of providing a safe, supportive social network for the members have remained, but a new goal has also formed. It's one that Rita and her colleagues are pursuing with vigour. That goal is firmly directed at second- and third-generation Sicilian migrants: the younger generation who lead lives that are busier and far more complex than the lives that were led 50 years ago and who find it hard to make time to come to the club and invest in its sustainability. Rita's aims are to reach the younger generation in order to instil the value of thriving communities, to impart the wisdom that, when communities work together, everyone rises and to crystallise the importance of giving back and supporting those who have supported you or who need even greater support.

I have been lucky to have had many long conversations with Rita. She is an intelligent and fierce woman with a very proud Sicilian heritage. She is determined to highlight the importance of maintaining Sicilian culture, be it Sicilian dialect or cuisine. Rita, thank you for your always-warm Sicilian hospitality. I wish you luck and support in your endeavours to ensure the long-term viability of the club.

Today I'd like to recognise Father Peter Slack and Father Jim Griffin, as this year marks 50 years since they were both ordained as priests, which is a remarkable milestone in their vocation.

Father Peter attended high school at St John's College, Woodlawn. He was ordained at St Augustine's parish church in his hometown ofCoffs Harbour in August 1975. Father Jim is an ex-student of Marist Brothers Lismore and was ordained in St Carthage's cathedral in September 1975. Father Jim celebrated his jubilee mass in September this year in the same cathedral. For decades now, Father Peter and Father Jim have been an integral part of our community. They have supported generations of families in their faith journey and in the delivery of the sacraments. Congratulations and thank you to both Father Peter Slack and Father Jim Griffin.

I'd like to acknowledge Jason Whitton, who works as a security guard at the Casino and District Memorial Hospital. Jason recently won the Small Acts of Kindness Award at the 2025 NSW Health Awards. Jason's work behind the scenes doesn't go unnoticed, with his colleagues and patients describing him as a respectful, positive and fantastic leader. Jason said: 'I just want people to know someone is thinking about them and they haven't been forgotten. I want to make their day a bit better.' Jason's willingness to help people has impacted everyone at the Casino memorial hospital, including staff, patients and visitors. I'd like to recognise and acknowledge his partner, Rebecca, and children, Cameron and Erika. Thank you, Jason, for everything you do in our community.

I'd like to recognise outstanding local businesses who were finalists in this year's Australian Hotels Association NSW Awards, a celebration excellence across the hospitality industry. The Coramba Hotel was a finalist for Best Burger and Regional Hotel of the Year and won Best Steak Sandwich.Their chef Jamie Everson received highly commended for Regional Chef of the Year. The Seaview Tavern in Woopi was a finalist for the best family-friendly venue. Damien Duggan from the Crown Hotel Motel in Grafton was a finalist for Regional Chef of the Year. The Harwood Hotel—the Harwood Hilton, as we know it—was a finalist for Heart of the Community. The North Coast Hotel Group—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:45 to 11:54

The North Coast Hotel Group in Grafton was a finalist for Heart of the Community and Group Hotel Operator of the Year, and the Station Hotel in South Lismore was a finalist for Best Innovative Refurbishment, and so it should be—Joel Jensen Constructions did a great job on that. The Good Intent Hotel in South Grafton was a finalist for Best Regional Development and Best Cocktail List. Congratulations to you all.

I rise today to talk about the government's proud record of delivery in my home state of Tasmania. Tasmanians know that they always do better under federal Labor governments, and that's certainly the case at the moment. Since we've come to office, more than $2 billion in new commitments has flown to my home state, supporting hospitals, schools, local roads and housing and the jobs that keep our community strong. Total federal support for Tasmania now exceeds $6 billion every single year, That's nearly double what it was a decade ago. Federal funding now makes up two-thirds of Tasmania's entire state budget, around 70 per cent, and at the moment our GST receipts are over $100 million higher than forecast.

This year alone, the Albanese Labor government are investing $750 million in hospital funding in my home state. This is Tasmania getting our fair share. We're investing responsibly in the future of our state. There are five urgent care clinics, with another three on the way, including one in my electorate, in the area of Kingborough. Cheaper medicines have helped Tasmanians save more than $40 million. The HECS debt relief that was promised is being delivered now for more than 50,000 Tasmanians. We're also delivering funding for major works, such as the Macquarie Wharf redevelopment and the Hobart airport upgrades, and providing support for Tasmanian industries, such as Nyrstar and the Boyer Paper Mill, as part of the clean energy transition.

This is what delivery looks like, and it's in stark contrast to the Tasmanian state Liberal minority government. They are failing. They are handing down a budget today that will show that our state now has a record debt. This lack of delivery is the reason that I wrote to the state minister for infrastructure regarding projects in my electorate—projects worth more than $300 million—that we're still waiting on to be delivered in my electorate. They include upgrades to the Tasman Bridge, the South Arm Highway, the Huon Highway, the Channel Highway and the Mornington roundabout and the expansion of the Derwent ferries project. Some of these projects have been waiting to be delivered for years. The state government needs to get on with this, and I'm going to keep the pressure on to make sure that they do deliver for our electorate.

As I said, our state is now facing a record debt, sadly, and I share the concerns of all Tasmanians that the state Liberal minority government is failing Tasmanians. They're making stop-gap policy decisions on the run, each and every day, without a strategic thought to Tasmania's best interests. Tasmanians deserve much better than this. They deserve better than the games that are being played by their Tasmanian Liberal minority government at the moment. As they deliver their budget today, I hope they have in their hearts, and in their decisions, Tasmania's best interests. I seriously doubt it, but with the debt that they're accumulating they need to do much better for Tasmanians.

I rise today because of a marvellous lady who lives in Tamworth . She was selected as a finalist in the 2025 National Rural & Remote Health Awards held in Canberra. I couldn't get there last night. The reason she's a marvellous lady is because Dr Miriam Grotowski is my local doctor. Dr Miriam is the reason—she was emphatic that I had to get my prostate checked, and that's why I'm standing here.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:58 to 12:03

Before I was so rudely interrupted by a division in the main chamber, I was talking about Dr Miriam Grotowski and what a marvellous person she is—as my local doctor and as a finalist for the 2025 National Rural and Remote Health Awards. It's a shame she didn't quite get there, but congratulations on getting so far.

Next, we'll go up the road to Glen Innes, and Matt Dodds from Glen Innes High School was awarded the Prime Minister's Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Secondary Schools. Matt is working in the STEM subjects, which are science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I had Matt to my office—he's great mates with Leigh Tschirpig, who works in my office. They like looking at the stars and they're obviously into astronomy as well. Matt is so dedicated to getting kids interested in those core subjects which are so vitally important for all the things that we do away from the arts. If you're looking at chemistry, you're talking about medicine. If you're looking at physics, you're talking about rockets. If you're looking at engineering, you're building dams and building marvellous things that make our nation stronger.

Then there's Dr Cheryl McIntyre. She's been a rural generalist for 25 years and has been named the Rural Doctors Association of Australia's rural doctor of the year for 2025. Cheryl, as a rural generalist, is so important. So many towns don't have a GP. People get very scared when they have no local doctor. If something goes wrong—an asthma attack, you name it, or if someone comes off a horse or a bike—and you haven't got a GP, where do you go? Then we've got the AgriFutures Rural Women's Awards. There's Isabella Thrupp, Katelyn Wall out at Nemingha and Dimity Smith, who I sit with sometimes on planes, going backwards and forwards. She runs GRO Rural and GRO Events Group. The Walcha coffee shop won the New South Wales State Business Award. It's a great business.

I want to close on something else. All the P&Cs, all the working bees, all these people do something for their community. If we didn't have people working for our community, our nation would be a lesser place. You've got to do more than is expected of you.

One final thing for our service men and women. Do not forget, on the 11th of the 11th, so this month, at 11 o'clock to stop for one minute. You can do that. Stop for one minute in consideration of those who served.

I love our teachers, and that's not just because my mum was one. On Friday, we celebrated World Teachers Day, and I want to give all of my teachers in Bonner a special shout-out. There are more than 31,000 school students right across Bonner, and their lives are changed and shaped each and every day by our teachers. I thank them for their commitment, service and passion for teaching. I also want to give a big shout-out to the Queensland Teachers Union, who I met with recently. For more than 135 years, they have ensured that teachers voices are heard loud and clear when it comes to ensuring teachers conditions, pay and safety are protected and that their rights promoted.

There are 49 schools in Bonner, and in the past six months I have already visited 21 of them. This includes Gumdale State School, who recently hosted Speaker of the House, Milton Dick, as part of the Australian Parliament House National Flag Roadshow. It was very special for the Gumdale State School students to hear firsthand about democracy and the parliament from the Speaker himself, and to unfurl the 12.8-metre by 6.4-metre flag, which has flown above parliament, in their hall.

As we know, not all students are able to visit parliament. I certainly didn't have that opportunity growing up in Yeppoon in Central Queensland, which makes it extra special for a piece of the parliament to come to them. Thank you to our Speaker for making the journey to Bonner. Our students absolutely loved it!

Finally, 2.7 million Australians are living with signs of kidney disease. That's about one in seven adults. For many, this means staying close to home to ensure access to dialysis machines, usually a few times a week. Holidays, family trips and simple time away from home become extremely difficult. I visited Kidney Health Australia's big red bus, which was right here at Parliament House last week, and saw firsthand the incredible initiative that it is. The bus is a mobile dialysis service. It gives people with kidney disease flexibility to travel while maintaining their treatment. Each bus is fitted with dialysis chairs, accessible facilities and qualified renal nurses. Delivering six sessions a day across holiday destinations in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, it gives patients the chance to spend time with their families, visit new places and maintain their health.

The Albanese Labor government is also supporting Australians living with chronic kidney disease by making medicines cheaper. Just last week, Jardiance was added to the PBS, giving more than 65,000 Australians access to life-changing medicine. Patients who used to pay $670 will now pay just $31.60 per script, or $7.70 with a concession card, dropping to just $25 from January 2026. These are practical measures making a real difference for so many Australians.

I want to recognise some of the outstanding people and community events in my local electorate of Cook. Earlier this month, the Jannali Moonrise Festival brought Jannali to life. It was a wonderful family event that, once again, filled our streets with food, music and community pride. It was terrific to see for many local volunteers, small businesses and families taking part. Festivals like this remind us why community is so special right across the Sutherland shire.

I would also like to acknowledge the team at Kurnell Family Medical Practice, who continue to deliver exceptional care for the local community. They do this across Woolooware and Kirrawee as well. In Kurnell, they are now a vital part of primary health in this electorate. They are a small, dedicated team that goes above and beyond for every single patient. I want to particularly recognise Dr Rebekah Hoffman and Dr Annalyse Crane, who officially opened the newly refurbished practice earlier this month. Their leadership and the practice's commitment to community and quality care make a real difference for families across Kurnell, who've not had a doctor at all in their community for the best part of a decade.

Recently, the Royal Motor Yacht Club at Port Hacking hosted a very special event. It was the McGrath Foundation's Ladies Pink Lunch. It raised an incredible $20,000 for McGrath breast care nurses. These nurses provide vital compassionate support for women and families facing breast cancer. A huge congratulations to Connie McManus, who organised and hosted the event with such passion and professionalism. Connie, you brought together local businesses, volunteers and supporters for not only a fundraiser but a celebration of generosity, resilience and hope. It was a stunning event and a credit to your vision and everyone who contributed. I congratulate everyone involved for their contribution, showcasing the very best of my community.

Today, I rise to speak about my necklace. It's a gold medal from the Australian Masters Games that I won just two weeks ago right here in Canberra with my team mates from the Perth team called Southerns. This medal represents more than just a win on the softball diamond; it represents the importance of staying in the game. There is an alarming trend in Australia where girls and women drop out of sport. Recent data shows a dropout rate of approximately 60 per cent for girls aged 15 and older. Life gets busy, with study, careers and, for many women, raising a family taking priority, and it becomes too easy to hang up the glove. But what I've learned is that sport is the very thing that can get you through all those things. It's about much more than physical health; it's about your support network and your community.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:12 to 12:22

The amazing women I played alongside during these games, some of us have been playing together, or in opposition, for nearly 40 years. These are my second family and we've celebrated life's wins and supported each other through the losses, both on and off the field. That social connection is highly valued and something that you don't always find. So I share this gold medal win with my Southerns team members: Jeanie Antonovich, Barb Priest, Robyn Davies, Julie May, Marie and Kay Walley, Vicki Egan, Sherri Huntress, Leesa Hogarth, Di Chreia, Sandy Thompson, Donna Delarie, Toni Staples, Jill Green and Bullwinkel residents Lynda Harvey and my sister, Diane Parker. To all the women and girls out there I say: find your team and stay in the game. I will leave you with this quote: 'If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself!'

I rise today to speak openly and honestly about the state of our nation's energy policy and the need for a cheaper, better and fairer path forward. The truth is that Labor's reckless rush to net zero is failing Australia. Since the Labor government took office, electricity prices have soared by almost 40 per cent and gas prices by more than 45 per cent. Families are struggling to pay their bills, small businesses are buckling under soaring costs and manufacturing jobs are disappearing by the thousands, and yet we are told that this is the price we must pay for progress. But what progress? Across regional Australia, pristine landscapes are being bulldozed for wind and solar projects. Forests are being cleared, farmland is being rendered useless and the rights of landholders are being stripped away. Even notable environmentalists like Steve Makowski, who generally cares about the environment, now warn of the environmental damage being done in the name of green energy. This is not progress; it is hypocrisy.

Labor's net zero obsession is driving investment out of our regions, pushing up energy prices and weakening our sovereignty. We now rely more than ever on imported solar panels, wind turbines and batteries, instead of thriving on our own natural resources. This is the definition of insanity. We can choose a different path, one that puts Australian families, workers and farmers first. A high-energy Australia is what we stand for: an Australia that uses all of its resources—the sun, gas, coal, hydro, wind and, in time, nuclear—to deliver cheaper, reliable power. Cheaper energy is important because it contributes to everything we do—every coffee that's made, every piece of clothing we buy and the food we eat; everything. Cheaper energy prices mean a lower cost of living and more money in the pockets of people who need it, not a $9 trillion debt our children and grandchildren will need to pay back. Our vision is better for families, stronger for industry and fairer for all Australians.

The promise of net zero has become a gigantic burden on our nation—a burden that has seen real wages drop back to 2011 levels and the loss of 7,000 manufacturing jobs. It's time to face reality and build a new feature—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:26 to 12:35

It's time to face reality and build a new energy future beyond net zero—one that powers this nation with pride, purpose and common sense. A cheaper, better, fairer Australia begins when we move beyond net zero and put Australians back in charge of our energy destiny.

The Raise Our Voice in Parliament competition has once again proven to be a resounding success. In my electorate of Corangamite, we received outstanding submissions from young people across the Bellarine, Surf Coast and Geelong region—young people with strong, clear views on the most consequential issues facing Australians. Today I am proud to share one of those voices.

Jessie is 20 years old. I've met them several times, and I know how deeply they care about people who need a safe place to call home. Jessie wrote:

In the last 2 years I have moved 7 times.

I have spent time on the streets, in motels and in share houses that nearly cost me my life.

Building houses, apartments, townhouses or modular housing, and having the right supports around people could help save multiple lives, but we need your help.

Young people are begging for a safe place to call home, and youth homelessness is on the rise, we need to act now because housing is a basic human right that everyone deserves.

Jessie's word speak to a reality of many young Australians. Australia is in the middle of a housing crisis 40 years in the making. For four decades, our country hasn't built enough homes or done enough for first home buyers.

The Albanese government recognises this and is acting. We're tackling the crisis from every angle, with the boldest housing agenda since the postwar period. We are delivering our $43 billion housing package focused on three pillars: building more homes, a better deal for renters and helping more Australians into homeownership. Already, more than 180,000 Australians have bought their first home with government support. Nearly one million households are benefiting from the 50 per cent increase to Commonwealth Rent Assistance. Half a million homes have been built since we came to office, and 28,000 social and affordable homes are in planning or construction, because the only real long-term solution is to build, and that's exactly what the Albanese government is doing.

Finally, can I thank every young person who made a contribution to Raise Our Voice. To my electorate and across the country, your voice matters. Our government hears you. Together we can build a better future where every Australian has a safe place to call home.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

I rise today to speak on Mental Health Month, which, of course, occurred in October. Like most people in this House, I have family and friends who have been impacted by mental health issues. I understand the day-to-day impacts of mental health—how it can sap the joy from everyday activities, like spending time with family and friends, and how severe mental illness can be just as life threatening as a physical illness. Mental health is rarely the first issue that people raise when I speak to them, when I'm out doorknocking, at a street stall or visiting schools. But it is an issue that comes out regularly over the course of a conversation or when I tell people about our investments in mental health, particularly when it comes to young people or adolescents.

Maybe the reason it is not at the forefront of people's minds or they are reluctant to raise it is stigma. We've come a long way in a short time in reducing stigma. When some of my mates—women and men—were younger, they might have been reluctant to talk about seeing a counsellor or psychologist or needing medication. They are now much more likely to talk about their troubles openly. But across Australia too many people still face stigma when they speak about their mental health. Too many believe that seeking help is a weakness rather than a strength. Too many young people hide their struggles, fearful that others will not understand. If we are to build a more compassionate and resilient country, we must challenge that culture of silence and replace it with one of openness and support, where mental health is treated the same as physical health.

Over recent years, the demand for services has grown sharply. The causes are complex. The pandemic, social isolation, housing stress and financial pressures have all left a mark. Young people face new pressures from social media, climate anxiety and disrupted education. Parents and carers are watching their children struggle too, often unable to find the right support. For too long, services were underfunded, fragmented and difficult to access. The system has not kept up with the level of need.

The Albanese Labor government is changing that. As part of our plan to strengthen Medicare, we've made a $1.1 billion commitment to deliver new and expanded mental health services across the country. This is the most significant investment in community based mental health care in a generation. It recognises that prevention and early intervention are just as vital as treatment. This investment will support Australians across every stage of life.

We are establishing 91 Medicare mental health centres across the nation, including one in Box Hill, in my electorate. These centres will be free, will be open for walk-ins and will not require a referral or a mental health treatment plan. They will be staffed by multidisciplinary teams of psychologists, social workers, nurses and peer support workers who can provide immediate, practical and compassionate care.

We are creating 20 perinatal mental health centres to support new and expectant parents during what can be a very vulnerable period. For many Australians, parenthood can bring loneliness and anxiety as well as joy. These centres will be providing counselling and support close to home, helping parents care for both their children and themselves.

We're also rolling out 17 Medicare mental health kids hubs to help children and families with behavioural, emotional and social wellbeing challenges. Early support in childhood can prevent more serious mental health issues later in life, and these hubs will provide that early family centred care. At the same time, we are expanding 203 headspace services across the country to support young people aged 12 to 25.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:43 to 12:53

I recently visited headspace in Box Hill alongside Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Emma McBride. There I met the dedicated staff who are providing essential support and tirelessly reaching out into the community, including our multicultural communities, to increase awareness of their services. I also met their youth consultative committee, committed young advocates who are taking time out between exams to ensure the voices of young people are heard in designing services. Headspace has long been one of the most trusted youth mental health services, and this expansion means more young Australians will be able to access support in their own communities, rather than waiting months or travelling long distances.

From early next year the government will introduce a national early intervention service. It will provide free phone based and online mental health support delivered by trained professionals. It is expected to assist more than 150,000 people every year. It will give Australians a way to seek help wherever they are, day or night. Together these initiatives will help reduce pressure on the private psychology service system and ensure that cost and location no longer determine who gets help. We are also building the workforce that will deliver this care. We know there is a shortage of mental health workers. It can often take too long to get an appointment once people take the brave step to reach out for help. We know there are not enough services to help people with acute mental health issues and not enough beds that people can go to, and we know that there is a missing middle in terms of the support that's available for people with serious mental health issues.

The government is funding more than 4,000 psychology scholarships, internships and training places to attract and retain qualified professionals across the country. We also recognise that clinical expertise is not the only form of knowledge that matters. Lived experience plays a vital role in recovery. At Box Hill headspace I met a peer support worker who was drawing on her own difficult experience and professional training to provide support to others. Sometimes it is only someone who has been through the same experience who can understand and who you can feel comfortable leaning on. That is why we are professionalising the peer workforce, establishing a new national peer workforce association and conducting the first ever census of peer workers next year. These changes are practical and far-reaching. They mean Australians will no longer have to wait for a crisis before accessing care. They will be able to find help sooner in their own communities from people who understand.

The government is also improving navigation. The Medicare mental health phone line, which is 1800595212, and website will help Australians find the best service suited to their needs—whether that is walk-in care, a telehealth appointment or a local peer support worker. Accessibility and early support saves lives. For someone in crisis the difference between being seen immediately and waiting weeks can be the difference between despair and recovery. For families these reforms mean hope and relief—knowing that help is nearby, free and available without stigma. This is what leadership looks like. It is about meeting Australians where they are and ensuring that no-one is left behind.

Through new perinatal centres, kids hubs, expanded headspace sites and community based Medicare mental health centres, the Albanese government is creating a comprehensive national network of care that supports Australians from early childhood through to later life. We know there is still work to do. I want a society and a system where mental health is treated with the same priority as physical health. But this investment—backed by record funding, a growing workforce and a renewed focus on lived experience—is a decisive step forward. Mental health is not a marginal issue; it is a national priority. We are tackling stigma, we are improving access and we are investing in the workforce, and, most importantly, we are giving Australians the confidence to seek help and the support they deserve when they do. This is the leadership in mental health our country has long needed.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 17:00

The House of Representatives having adjourned—

Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:00